PURNENDU CHATTERJEE Vs. PURULIA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellant is the original complainant who was admittedly insured for personal accident and the insurance was accepted and has also produced the policy. He alleged that he met with a scooter accident on 31.12.89 and was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Kshatri. He was under the treatment of Dr. Kshatri and remained sometime as indoor patient also. In the instant case the deposition of the doctor has been recorded vide Exh.36 and the doctor on oath stated that when the complainant came to his hospital he was injured. The complainant appears to have produced the certificate showing that he has remained as indoor patient from 31.12.89 to 20.1.90 and thereafter he has taken treatment from 21.1.90 to 25.2.90 as outdoor patient. There was some correction in the certificate and, therefore, Dr. Kshatri appears to have been examined on behalf of the District Forum and he has in his deposition explained that there was a mistake in writing the date and, therefore, the same was corrected and short signature was put. Inspite of the evidence of the doctor who has been examined by the District Forum there was no room for doubting the accident. We had also examined the right wrist of the complainant present in the Court in presence of the advocate of the other side and it clearly appears that there was a wound on the right wrist of the complainant.

(2.) In any view of the matter, the Insurance Company had no knowledge and no evidence has been produced by the insurance company. The Insurance company has not even rejected the claim and taken undue time in considering the claim of the complainant. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the decision of the District Forum is not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence. We accept the evidence of the complainant and hold that the complainant had met with the accident on 31.12.89, and he is entitled for the claim. The question now arises is as to what amount he is entitled to. There is some discrepancy in the bills. The complainant states that he is a poor man and everything was given to him on credit and when he was able to pay the bills were made and that is why the bills show some discrepancy. In any view of the matter if the complainant had remained in the hospital for the time stated above and thereafter he was treated as outdoor patient, he must have spent considerable amount and the claim of Rs.15,000/- is not a high figure. However, after considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that if the complainant is awarded Rs.10,000/- the interest of justice will be served. The complainant states that he is prepared to accept the amount of Rs.10,000/- because he is in need of money. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we award Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation including pain and suffering for not receiving the claim in time. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant (appellant) with running interest @ 12% p. a. after three months from the date when he made the claim. He is also entitled to cost which we quantify at Rs.150/-. The said amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.