NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MATIUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award passed by the 10th Additional District Judgecum-Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 24 of 1991. The judgment was rendered on 6.9.1996 whereby the respondent No. 1 of this miscellaneous appeal Matiur Rahman was granted a compensation amount of Rs. 1,65,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of filing of the petition. The insurance company is the appellant here.

(2.) The insurance company appellant challenged the principles on the basis of which the quantum of compensation was fixed in favour of the injured .Matiur Rahman. It was submitted by the appellant's lawyer that the principles of calculation of the compensation amount to an injured have been laid down under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. The respondents' lawyer replied that since the alleged accident took place in the year 1991, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be applicable and the provisions of Amendment Act, 1994 shall not cover the principles in fixing the amount of compensation. In this connection, I find that the judgment was rendered on 6.9.1996 and already Amendment Act, 1994 had come into force. Of course, the accident took place in the year 1991 in which Matiur Rahman had sustained injuries due to collision of his car with a truck. But the question is whether Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shall decide the principles on the basis of which the compensation amount would be fixed or whether Amendment Act, 1994, would be applicable for the principles to be adopted in fixing the compensation amount. In this connection, I am of the opinion that so far the liability to pay compensation is concerned that shall be incurred under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but so far the principles determining the compensation amount are concerned, the law applicable at the time of the decision shall be the law to be adopted for fixing the compensation amount. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has not laid down any specific principle on the basis of which compensation amount is to be calculated. (Sic.) various Tribunals in fixation of the compensation amount, a change was brought about by Amendment Act, 1994, which laid down certain principles for fixing compensation amount, to maintain uniformity in the decision rendered by various Claims Tribunals throughout the country. So principles laid down under the Amendment Act, 1994, are to be followed for fixing compensation amount.

(3.) I find that in the instant case, two kinds of compensation amounts were claimed by the claimant, Matiur Rahman, first category of compensation amount was the pecuniary losses which the injured suffered. The other category of loss was non-pecuniary which arose from the mental agony and ordeal which the injured underwent. The court below had assessed the pecuniary amount of medical treatment at Rs. 20,000, because the injured failed to produce accounts of the expenditure incurred on his treatment. However, Second Schedule to the Amendment Act, 1994, has given a chart on the basis of which amount of medical expenditure has to be assessed where no accounts such as voucher and bills are submitted before the Tribunal. In the instant case, no bills and vouchers indicating actual expenditure were submitted before the Tribunal. So, the learned Tribunal fixed it at Rs. 20,000. But Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, item 3 (iv) has fixed maximum amount of Rs. 15,000 where no bills are submitted. So, amount fixed by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 15,000. So far the amount on professional loss is concerned, in this connection also the injured-applicant failed to produce the account and any certificate. Learned counsel, however, stated that there was (Sic.) monthly income Rs. 10,000 and, therefore, the Tribunal fixed compensation amount on account of professional loss at Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal has stated in its judgment that the injured was confined to the hospital for a month and thereafter he was able to walk on shoes for three months, with the help of stick for six months. Therefore, the Tribunal stated that, perhaps, the injured did not attend office for one year. But in this connection I am of the opinion on that the learned Tribunal acted arbitrarily. There was no certificate produced by the injured that he did not attend office for one year. He had received fracture on his femur for which he was treated in nursing home. When the Tribunal stated that he was walking on shoes and stick for three months and six months, I am unable to understand on what basis the Tribunal said that the injured did not attend office for one year. Admittedly, the injured was discharged from the hospital after one month. It was stated in his evidence that he was limping. So, once he was discharged from the hospital, he must have become able to walk on his legs either with the help of crutches or on particular medicated shoes. So, unless he produced certificate from his office that he was unable to attend office for a particular period, I do not think he could be awarded compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 on account of professional loss for non-attending office for one year. So, I think that the injured could be allowed a proper amount of professional loss at least for three months at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month and as per his income, the loss from the professional income would come to Rs. 30,000. So, the amount of compensation on account of professional loss is fixed at Rs. 30,000. The learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 5,000 for future treatment of the injured-claimant. I need not touch this amount and I allow it to remain at the amount fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further granted Rs. 10,000 on account of repair of the car of the injured. I think the car of the injured which received damage must have received its compensation from the company with which the car was insured. So, there was no question of granting any compensation on account of repair of the car. So, the award in this connection is set aside. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 40,000 as an amount of compensation for mental and physical pain suffered by the injured. In this connection, chart of Amendment Act, 1994, column 4 (i) has fixed an amount of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for pain and suffering. So, the amount fixed by Claims Tribunal at Rs. 40,000 was also whimsical. I, therefore, reduce this amount to the statutory amount at Rs. 5,000. Thereafter, the Tribunal had proceeded to fix nonpecuniary compensation amount and in this connection he has awarded Rs. 20,000 on account of loss of amenities and enjoyment of his life. In this connection, perhaps, the injured was confined to hospital bed for one month. So, if he is deprived of enjoyment of normal life, that amount may be fixed at Rs. 10,000. The amount fixed by the court at Rs. 20,000 was whimsical one. Then the Tribunal has fixed an amount of Rs. 20,000, under the head inconvenience or hardship in life. This head is similar and akin to the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of his life. So, no amount is fixed on the head. So, the total amount of compensation fixed by Claims Tribunal at Rs. 1,65,000 is modified and the total compensation amount is fixed at Rs. 65,000. The insurance company appellant shall pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant-appellant, Matiur Rahman. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is kept intact.