BIKASH SEN GUPTA Vs. MEMBER MACT KAMRUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 6.5.1994 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T. Case No. 147/91.

(2.) The appellant who at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer under the CPWD, Guwahati was injured in an accident caused by Ambassador Car bearing No. ML- 05-1751 on 7,1.91 at about 12-50 PM. According to the appellant, while he was proceeding from Dispur to Khanapara on his scooter at the Down Town Hospital point the offending Vehicle mentioned above while trying to over take a Maruti Gypsy at breakneck speed dashed against and injured him severely causing fracture to his right palm. The appellant accordingly presented a complaint before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was numbered and registered as MAC Case No. 147/91. the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,12,000/- for loss of service of 20 years, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month for keeping attendants, Rs. 10,640/- for loss of his leave from office, Rs. 30,000/- for pain, agony and shock, Rs. 15,000/- for disfiguration of his body and Rs. 1,000/- for damage of his scooter. The Insurance Company, Respondent No. 2 herein contested the claim petition and filed its written statement. 2. Upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed 6(six) issues for trial. The claimant on his behalf examined 4(four) witnesses. The first witness on behalf of the claimant narrated about the accident and stated that the offending vehicle came in a high speed and dashed against the complainant on scooter. He also investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The said witness proved the F.I.R. as well as the charge- sheet. The Claimant also examined himself as witness No. 2 and narrated the facts as how the accident took place and stated that despite extreme caution he could not save himself from the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He also stated that he was taken to the Hospital in the said offending Car by the Police and operated upon his right hand palm. He was hospitalised for about 5 to 7 days and due to injuries be has become unable to work by his right hand. Associate Professor, Orthopaedic Department, GMC Hospital, Dr. Anil Kumar Mahanta was examined as witness No. 3, he examined the Claimant on 8.1.91 and found (1) fracture dislocation of the carpal bones with fractures of the scaphoid bone and fracture of the radio style. The Doctor further deposed that the claimant was discharged on 12.1.91 and was advised to come on 22.1.91 and was treated as out door patient since then. The said witness also stated that close reduction was done on the claimant in general anasthea. The said witness also stated the close reduction is one type of operation. While deposing in the Court this witness stated that the patient was suffering from stiffness of writ joint land finger's joint with pain in fracture and as a result the right hand is injured. The patient could not lift big object and with great difficulty he can write and the hand is not completely invalid but he can do with great difficulties. The Doctor proved the Certificate as Exbt. 4. According to the Doctor disability was of 45% and which was permanent in nature. Jitendra Ghose was another witness, who was examined by the claimant as an eye witness.

(3.) The learned Trial Court on analysing the evidence on record held that the accident took place due to the rush and negligent act of the driver, O.P. No. 3. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant became unable to move the wrist of his right hand and also to held or lift any big articles. He has also became unable to drive scooter due to impairment of his right hand palm. The Tribunal however held that there was no reliable evidence from the side of the claimant to show that he in fact did become unable to do any official work due to injury of his right hand. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the claimant sustained grievous injury resulting in the partial impairment of his right hand due to rash and negligent driving by OP No. 3 and answered the issue accordingly. The learned tribunal rejected the apprehension of the claimant that imminent compulsory retirement because of the injury. The learned Tribunal also held that in duo course the complainant is entitled to pension and other service benefits and therefore ruled out any apprehension of loss of any income after his serves career is over. The learned Tribunal also observed that the claimant has fairly slated before the tribunal about submission of his medical bills for reimbursement before the authority and accordingly the said claimant did not claim of re-imbursement of the medical bills. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim of Rs, 2,000/- per month for rest of his life for keeping an attendant to do his day to day life and also to serve him. The teamed Tribunal, however, held that the claimant is found entitled to some compensation to be paid to his wife for attending to his day to day works and accordingly a sum of Rs. 250/- per month had been awarded for 20 years till he attains 70 years i.e. Rs. 250/- x 12 x 20 = 60,000/- on that account. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim of compensation of Rs. 10,640/- for loss of his leave for 83 days. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal did not find any evidence of disfiguration of his body due to the accident, however awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards partial disableness of his right palm. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 250/- for repairment of scooter. The learned tribunal accordingly awarded Rs. 80,250/- with 10% interest from the date of application till payment. Hence the appeal before this Court,