SUTAPA SAHA Vs. NIVEDITA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant against judgement dated 31st March, 2008 passed by Ld. Judge of 10th Court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Alipore in MAC case no.143 of 2003, by which Ld. Judge of the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.89,000/ -.

(2.) THE appellant/claimant Smt. Sutapa Saha sustained injuries due to motor accident on 1st August, 2003 at Durgapur, while she was travelling in auto rickshaw along with her husband, son and one relative. She was initially shifted to the hospital of Durgapur Steel Plant where she was treated from 01.08.2003 to 11.08.2003. She was subsequently shifted to SSKM Hospital at Kolkata for further medical treatment. The victim Smt. Sutapa Saha was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and she used to earn Rs.5,000/ - per month from her business. She suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 38% due to injuries sustained by her in the accident on 01.08.2003. The appellant/claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.3,20,000/ - before the claim Tribunal by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the appellant/claimant sustained injuries due to motor accident on 01.08.2003 and was treated in the hospital initially at Durgapur and thereafter at SSKM Hospital, Kolkata. It is also not disputed that the appellant used to earn Rs.5,000/ - per month i.e. Rs.60,000/ - per annum from her business as reflected in the income tax return submitted by the appellant. The further admitted position is that the appellant was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. It appears from the impugned judgment that Ld. Judge of the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence that the appellant suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 38% and as such the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/ - only as pecuniary loss of the appellant for one year. The appellant has stated in her evidence in chief that she suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 38% and no suggestion is given to the appellant by the respondent insurance company in this regard during her cross - examination. Moreover, the doctor who examined the appellant for assessing permanent partial disability has also deposed before the Tribunal and faced cross -examination by the respondent insurance company. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant has adduced sufficient evidence before the Tribunal including the evidence of the expert for holding that the appellant suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 38% due to injuries sustained by her in the accident. No cogent explanation is forthcoming to disbelieve the evidence of the expert who assessed permanent partial disablement of the appellant to the extent of 38%. In view of the above findings, this court can safely hold that the appellant suffered permanent partial disablement to the extent of 38%.