SRI PRADIP BHOWMIK Vs. SRI SANKAR DEBBARMA AND THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal for enhancement by the claimant is directed against the award dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West TRIPURA, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 109 of 2006 whereby he awarded Rs. 1,75,000/ - as compensation in favour of the claimant. Out of this amount Rs. 1,50,000/ - has been awarded for the medical expenses and Rs. 25,000/ - for bodily pain and suffering. Sri H. Debnath, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in holding that no documents had been produced by the claimant to prove his claim. He has drawn my attention to the statement of the claimant wherein the claimant had exhibited a large number of documents such as the discharge certificates, the records of his treatment, the cash memos, air tickets etc.. In the statement so recorded it is mentioned that these documents had been marked as exhibits but unfortunately, it appears that the Court did not actually affix the marks on these documents and, therefore, remained under the impression that no documents had been filed.

(2.) BE that as it may, these documents have to be taken into consideration. At the outset it may be stated that the claimant met with the accident and remained admitted in the G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala from 17.09.2005 to 20.10.2005 i.e. for 34(thirty four) days. He was diagnosed as having fracture of the hip and conservative treatment was administered at Agartala. Obviously the claimant did not recover and, therefore, he went to Calcutta where he was admitted in the SRI AUROBINDO SEVA KENDRA and remained admitted there from 31.10.2005 to 22.11.2005. Here his leg was put in traction but did not yield positive results. Thereafter, the claimant went to the M.N. Orthopaedic Hospital at Chennai where he remained admitted from 05.12.2005 to 19.12.2005 i.e. for 15(fifteen) days and here hip replacement was done and the claimant has thereafter recovered. The claimant has produced on record a large number of documents about the expenses incurred on his treatment and even the cash memos on record show that the amount spent is Rs. 1,10,179.81 paisa. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there may be some other amounts which the claimant may have spent for which receipts may not have been kept during this long drawn of his treatment. Treatment may also be required after discharge and, therefore, I assess the cost of medical treatment alone at Rs. 1,25,000/ -.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for attendant charges. The claimant remained admitted in hospitals at Agartala and outside the State of TRIPURA. He was admitted in Agartala itself for 34(thirty four) days and would have required attendants round the clock. Even if the cost of one attendant in the year 2005 is assessed at Rs. 250/ -, the cost of two attendants works out to Rs. 500/ - and the cost of two attendants for 34(thirty four) days therefore, comes to Rs. 17,000/ -. As far as the cost of attendants in Calcutta and Chennai are concerned the evidence shows that two attendants accompanied the claimant. Here the claimant had to arrange for the board and lodging of the attendants also and therefore, the cost of each attendant is taken at Rs. 500/ - per day and the cost of attendants outside the State is taken at Rs. 1000/ - per day. The claimant remained outside the State for about 43(forty three) days and therefore, the cost of attendants charges is assessed at Rs. 43,000/ -. The total cost of attendants therefore, works out to Rs. 60,000/ -.