United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Makhan Mala And ORS

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A
L
A
CRP
No.
92
of
2010
United
India
Insurance
Company
Ltd.





    




 ! " !  # $% 
 &

 


' .......
Petitioner
-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
1.
Shri
Makhan
Malla,

   ( & & 2.
Sri
Saptajit
Malla
alias
Saptadip
Malla,
   &) & *  #   +

 )   $#  *)
  ! " %  #  +

($   (,  -#!
  !'

3.

Md.
Farid
Miah
 

  #  #   

*    $.
.

   


 ! "

     $  / (.01.

2344'

4.
Kala
Miah
    &  #  



/ /     5 $.

. 


 ! "
  

#   $ 

/ (.01.2344'

.......
Respondents

[2] B
E
F
O
R
E
THE
HON'BLE
MR.
JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
6   :
& (
$ # 

& *
$ # 

6  !#  :
& 
 #% # 

  

:
07022018


  % 

: 26.02.2015
9#  5 #     ! :

YES NO

√
JUDGMENT
&

ORDER

 :    $

  #   !



 # #  224    ;#    #   : 

 

#

  ;

 

   - ;# ;

!% <#       

   $ #      

 #  

# 10= #$%   >!

# 

 

  

>   (2?0000@. "(!

  )   #'    A (4= !    1B072003 [2] & 
#%   !!



 

   $ #     !

 #    ;#   #      

!  ##   !

   !!

 # 

 147  & + 

  #

!  

 #  !# # #  

 1C3"2'  & + 

 13?? D

     $

 # 





[3] !!    $%   !

    #         

!#  & #%



 $ #   

   #$%   # 

!#  /2  $

    

# 10= #$% $

      8"

 ' %  !    17 % 

  

# 

       # $%   !#   $ %  $ #    6    

 #  

 ! 

! # #  # # # # 03022010 #  #  "& ' / 18  2010 $%  &

#   $

 !     $

 $  #  # E "The
petitioner
No.1
produced
the
cash
memos
supported
by
prescriptions
in
connection
with
the
treatment
of
the
petitioner
No.2
for
Rs.52,631/A
which
he
(petitioner
No.1)
incurred
towards
the
cost
of
medicine
and
xA ray,
bed
charges,
and
other
charges
in
connection
with
treatment.
Therefore,
an
amount
of
Rs.52,631/A
is
awarded
for
the
cost
of
medicine,
xAray,
the
charge
of
operation
purpose
and
nursing
home
charges
etc.
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.1.
It
also
appears
that
the
petitioner
No.1
incurred
Rs.17,200/A
to
meet
the
conveyance
allowance
during
treatment
of
the
victim.
To
establish
this
point,
the
petitioner
No.1
produced
money
receipt.
Therefore,
an
amount
of
Rs.

17,200/A
is
awarded
for
the
conveyance
allowance
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.1.
It
also
appears
that
the
petitioner
No.2
was
admitted
as
indoor
patient
at
G.B.P.
Hospital
only
one
day
on
24.07.08.
Thereafter,
on
the
following
day
i.e.
on
25.07.2008
after
taking
discharge
from
the
G.B.P.
Hospital
the
petitioner
No.2
further
got
admission
as
indoor
patient
at
the
Care
and
Cure
Polyclinic
&
Medical
Research
Centre,
Agartala
from
25.07.08
to
04.08.08
and
14.08.09
to
19.08.09.
Of
course,
the
petitioner
No.1
engaged
one
attendant
to
make
care
of
the
victim
during
his
treatment
at
G.B.P.





[4] which
an
amount
of
Rs.100/
X
18
days
=
Rs.1800/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.1
for
the
charge
of
attendant
@
Rs.100/A
per
day.
Besides,
the
victim
further
admitted
in
the
Care
&
Cure
Polyclinic
&
Medical
Research
Centre,
Agartala
for
removal
of
the
plate
from
the
(Rt)
femoral
region
as
indoor
patient
from
14.08.2009
to
19.08.2009
for
which
a
further
amount
of
Rs.100/A
X
6
days
=
Rs.600/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.1
for
the
charge
of
attendant
@Rs.100/A
per
day.
It
also
appears
that
the
petitioner
attended
private
specialist
doctor
at
Agartala
for
7
days,
for
which
an
amount
of
Rs.150/A
X
7
=
Rs.1050/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.

1
for
the
fees
of
private
specialist
Medical
Officer
@
Rs.150/A
per
day.
It
is
a
fact
that
the
petitioner
No.2
produced
the
injury
certificate
in
respect
of
his
injury
and
from
the
injury
certificate
it
appears
that
the
petitioner
No.2
was
suffering
from
fracture
right
femur
proximal
1/3rd
and
swelling
and
pain
which
led
inference
that
the
petitioner
No.2
was
suffering
fracture
grievous
injuries
on
his
person
due
to
alleged
road
traffic
accident.
If
so,
an
amount
of
Rs.5000/A
may
be
awarded
towards
his
pain
and
sufferings
as
per
second
schedule
of
Section
163A
of
the
M.V.
Act,
1988.
Therefore,
an
amount
of
Rs.5000/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
towards
his
pain
and
sufferings.

The
Medical
Board
issued
a
Certificate
in
favour
of
the
victim
showing
10%
disablement.
From
physical
observation
of
the
victim
it
appears
that
he
is
suffering
a
lot
and
cannot
move
alone
without
help
of
scratch
and
other.
Accordingly,
it
seems
to
me
that
it
is
impossible
for
the
victim
to
get
his
normal
life
in
future.
Since
the
victim
being
minor
had/has
no
income
his
notional
income
would
be
Rs.15000/A
per
annum.
So
considering
all
these
factors,
the
petitioner
is
entitled
to
get
Rs.15000/A
per
annum
X
15
=
Rs.2,25,000/A
as
awarded.
Further
considering
physical
position
of
the
victim
and
his
mental
in
tress,
frustration,
disappointment,
discomfort,
hardship,
inconvenience
and
loss
of
career
Rs.50,000/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
victim.

It
may
be
mentioned
here
that
the
petitioner
No.1
is
a
cultivator
and
due
to
treatment
of
his
minor
son
the
petitioner
No.1
has
lost
his
profession
for
not
less
than
1(one)
year.
So,
it
will
be
convenient
to
assess
his
loss
of
income
from
guess
work.
Accordingly,
Rs.50,000/A
is
awarded
in
favour
of
the
petitioner
No.1
towards
his
loss
of
income
during
the
treatment
period
of
the
petitioner
No.2,
w.e.f.
24.07.08
to
19.08.09.





[5] [3]

 $  # $%  $   !#  /2   $ $   #  

   & #%     # % 

 

# 

 # #   !

  !#  /1 $ 



  #  

  # #   !

 

!#  /2 & #%   

! % $ #      #  #

    !#  /2    #  

 



     

 

 #     ! $          # #   !#  /2 # 

 %        



!     

 #$%  

>  

10= #$%

  

 # $

    [4]
6    #  & (
$ 

 # & *
$   !!



 

!#  /1 # 2      #  !#  $

  

#  $%   !

    

 #

# # $%  !

  Sadhana
Lodh
vs.
National
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.,
 ! #  AIR
2003
SC
1561,


!

  

 % $  # 
 



      

  

        

                  

     !





[6] [5]
& *
$   !!



 

!#   !

#  

 

    
Sanjoy
Acharjee
vs.
State
of
Tripura
and
Anr.,
 ! #  (2014)
2
TLR
313
   #  # !  ! !   !

   

 &
$ 

 !!



  !#   $ #  

! !  #         # ;  # # !  $#%.#%     !#    #

  #

% % 

 

%     # $% 

  

#  

 % 

 :      "'

 

 F "'

>!

        %  #

#  >!

  ! !

 #   # 

 "'   #   !    

$%   !  !  $#% # "'  





! %  #

 $

%     .!

% $    $   #      % [6] D

 #  Sanjoy
Acharjee
vs.
State
of
Tripura
and
Anr.,
  $

   # $% &
$ 

  !#     

  !

 !  $

 # $%  % 





 #

    #      

$%       D    $ #  

 #  $   #  %   %  





[7]  

 #   $   #     $      )   $%  

 

$   

 # 

#  ! # 

 &
$ 

   #        $



 $

 #   

  !G $ :  !

     !  #

# 

!   %   !%  ! 
  

>!  


[7] ; Rajkumar
vs.
Ajay
Kumar,
 ! #  (2011)
1
SCC
343,
 !

  # #  $#  ! !  

% # .!

% #

   

 # E "6.
The
heads
under
which
compensation
is
awarded
in
personal
injury
cases
are
the
following:

Pecuniary
damages




(i)
Expenses
relating
to
treatment,
hospitalization,
medicines,
transportation,
nourishing
food,
and
miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii)
Loss
of
earnings
(and
other
gains)
which
the
injured
would
have
made
had
he
not
been
inured,
comprising:

(a)
Loss
of
earning
during
the
period
of
treatment;

(b)
Loss
of
future
earnings
on
account
of
permanent
disability.
(iii)
Future
medical
expenses.





[8] 




(iv)
Damages
for
pain,
suffering
and
trauma
as
a
consequence
of
the
injuries.

(v)
Loss
of
amenities
(and/or
loss
of
prospects
of
marriage).
(vi)
Loss
of
expectation
of
life
(shortening
of
normal
longevity).
In
routine
personal
injury
cases,
compensation
will
be
awarded
only
under
heads
(i),
(ii)
(a)
and
(iv).
It
is
only
in
serious
cases
of
injury,
where
there
is
specific
medical
evidence
corroborating
the
evidence
of
the
claimant,
that
compensation
will
be
granted
under
any
of
the
heads
(ii)(b),
(iii),
(v)
and
(vi)
relating
to
loss
of
future
earnings
on
account
of
permanent
disability,
future
medical
expenses,
loss
of
amenities
(and/or
loss
of
prospects
of
marriage)
and
loss
of
expectation
of
life."


[8]
D

#   !

 $  #

# $%    !     

# # !  Sadhana
Lodh
vs.
National
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
#     # $ %  

#    ; Sadhana
Lodh
vs.
National
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
  $

  # E 7.
The
supervisory
jurisdiction
conferred
on
the
High
Courts
under
Article 227 of
the
Constitution
is
confined
only
to
see
whether
an
inferior
Court
or
Tribunal
has
proceeded
within
its
parameters
and
not
to
correct
an
error
apparent
on
the
face
of
the
record,
much
less
of
an
error
of
law.
In
exercising
the
supervisory
power
under
Article 227 of
the
Constitution,
the
High
Court
does
not
act
as
an
Appellate
Court
or
the
Tribunal.
It
is
also
not
permissible
to
a
High
Court
on
a
petition
filed
under
Article 227 of
the
Constitution
to
review
or
reAweigh
the
evidence
upon
which
the
inferior
Court
or
Tribunal
purports
to
have
passed
the
order
or
to
correct
errors
of
law
in
the
decision.
[9]
;  

   %  

!

   !!

   

    $





[9]   #  #          

 

 $%  D      !

% !             

$) !   .      D

  :  

$%   $% # # *        $ % # $%          #

      # $

 


[10]

     %  G # 

# # #       /2  $

 $

    #      #   #  >!

#

 

>   (82B71@. "(!

 6 % # > # % '

        $

 !#

# #     $

  #   $     %  

 (80000@.   $

 #         !%  !   

       >$   :   $ 

# 

   #   # %      # 

%   # # # D    $  #     JUDGE