UPER SINGH Vs. DIBYENDU BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30th July, 1977 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Calcutta and 24 Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 142 of 1973.

(2.) UPER Singh and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. who are the objectors in the said accident case before the Tribunal, are the Appellants in the instant appeal. On an application for compensation under Section 110 -A(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 made by the claimant -Respondent. Dibyendu Biswas, the said M.A.C. Case No. 142 of 1973 was started. The claimant -Petitioner contended that because of rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing No. WMK 447 belonging to the Appellant, Uper Singh, the said claimant -Petitioner sustained serious injuries on his feet and ankle joint, resulting in amputation of half of his left feet as a result of which the claimant has been crippled. It appears that the claimant is an employee in, the Telephone Department of the Government of India and at the relevant time he had been drawing a salary of Rs. 605/ - per month. It also appears that the claimant is a technical personnel and he passed L.C.E. examination. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Judge came to the finding that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry and the claimant Petitioner was entitled to get compensation commensurate with the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and the salary he had been drawing at the relevant time. The learned Judge has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 66.800/ - (Sic. Rs. 67,800/ -) in the following manner.

(3.) SO far as the aforesaid sum of Rs. 48,000/ - on account of additional expenses to be incurred on account of transport and for maintaining an attendant is concerned. Mr. Chowdhury has submitted that the claimant -Petitioner has not pleaded the special damages on account of the said two factors and in his evidence also he has not indicated as to whether any attendant has been maintained by him and there is no evidence about the cost being incurred by the claimant Petitioner on account of engaging an attendant. Mr. Chowdhury has, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 18.000/ - towards cost of attendant out of his imagination without any rational basis. Mr. Chowdhury has also contended that so far as the cost of transport of Rs. 30.000/ - is concerned, the learned Judge has also not given any indication as to how the said sum can be awarded in favour of the claimant Petitioner. He has indicated that the claimant -Petitioner has also not pleaded the special damage on account of loss being suffered by way of additional expenses of transport because of the accident suffered by the Petitioner. That apart, in his evidence, the claimant -Petitioner has also not indicated as to what is the actual loss being suffered by him because of additional expenses being incurred by him on account of transport. He has, therefore, submitted that the said amount of award for Rs. 30,000/ - on account of transport must be held to be arbitrary and without any rational basis.