IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta FMAT 8 of 2023 Director of Transport Versus Smt. Suban Barla For the Appellant/Claimant : Mr. V.D. Sivabalan, Adv. Heard on : 17.02.2026 Judgment on : 19.02.2026 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J: 1. This instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.06.2023 passed by Learned Sole Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Additional District Judge) at Port Blair in MACT Case no. 21 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on contest against OP no.1 and 2 being the driver of the offending vehicle and the Director, State Transport, Service, A&N 2 Administration, Port Blair on account of injury suffered by the victim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 2. The brief facts of this case are as follows: - a. On 16.11.2011 at about 6.40 am, the victim, namely Master Rohit Barla, was standing near the water connections of Laxmipur locality for collecting water. At that material point of time, a government vehicle, a state transport service Bus Bearing No. AN01D-0231 was coming from Diglipur Main Bazar crossing towards Laxmipur at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and all of a sudden hit the victim, who happened to be the son of the Respondent herein. As a result of such accident, the victim sustained serious injuries to his person, particularly in his left thigh, which was broken on account of the impact of the said accident. b. The sister of the victim, who was present at the place of occurrence, witnessed the unfortunate incident and immediately took the victim to the Community Health Centre, Diglipur, for medical treatment. The victim underwent prolonged medical care and, as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, 3 suffered permanent disablement, resulting in serious impairment of his ability to walk. c. Owing to the permanent disablement suffered by the victim, his future prospects were adversely affected. Consequently, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed, claiming compensation to the tune of ₹50,00,000/-. 3. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, brought on record by the parties, the learned Tribunal Judge has assessed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the victim of Rs. 15,000/- per month as notional income since the victim was aged about 14 years and a student of class IX, and he had no income. 4. The appellant, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded in favour of the Respondent/claimant, filed this instant appeal praying set aside the impugned judgment and order as aforesaid. Under the above facts and circumstances, the appeal has come up before this Bench for its disposal. 5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the compensation, whatsoever, should not be allowed as the applicant failed to prove his case. The applicant further failed to produce any medical bills or a disabled certificate of the victim, but the Tribunal overlooked and did not appreciate such material facts. 4 6. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation, which is not permissible in law; therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 7. This court heard the submission carefully and on perusal of the record, including the oral evidence and documentary exhibits, this Court finds the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle being an STS Bus bearing no. AN-01-D-0231 and in the said accident, one Rohit Barla sustained serious injuries to his person on the basis of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 (Eye witness) to the accident. In addition, Documents like FIR, Written Complaint, Charge sheet, seizure lists and injury report marked as Exhibits-P/4 Collectively also support the case of the Respondent that the Driver of the vehicle was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. 8. It is not disputed that the accident did not occur on the date, time and place involving the offending vehicle. It is also true that the Respondent was unable to produce any medical bills or disability certificate to prove that the victim suffered permanent disablement. However, the only documents with regard to his treatment were filed i.e. discharge report and the injury report. Such document was 5 handed over to the victim party at the time of discharge from the hospital on completion of medical treatment. 9. The report clearly indicates that a surgical incision took place in the right femur shaft of the victim in the process of his treatment after the accident. It is sufficient to hold that the victim suffered serious injuries to his person. The appellant failed to rebut any of the facts narrated by the witnesses. The Tribunal rightly allowed the just compensation to the Respondent on the above background and also relying on the catena of judgments passed by the Apex court that just compensation can be awarded in a genuine case, even applying or invoking the cases similarly filed under Section 163A of the Act, subject to computation of the Notional income of the victim. The Tribunal relied upon a decision passed by the Supreme Court in the Case of Kaushnuma Begum and others Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd and another1. 10. This court has also relied upon the following decisions: - 1. Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.2, 2. R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.3 3. Pranay Sethi Case (Supra)4. 1 (2001) 8 SCC 151 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343; 3 1995 AIR 755, 1995 SCC (1) 551 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 11. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get non-pecuniary damages as well as compensation under the head of “future prospects”. The Learned Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of “Pain, Shock and Suffering” already undergone by the victim on account of the accidental injury to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and under the head loss of future prospects of the minor victim, who ultimately suffered injury by virtue of the accident Rs. 50,000/- in Total 2,00,000/= which appears to be just and proper. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order by the learned Tribunal call for no interference. 12. The Appellant is directed to pay the compensation as awarded by the Learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- together with the interest as indicated above within a period of 4 weeks from date directly to the account of the Respondent/claimant. 13. The impugned judgment and award dated12.06.2023 passed by the Learned Sole Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Port Blair in MACT Case no. 21 of 2015 is hereby affirmed. 14. With the above observations, the instant appeal being FMAT 8 of 2023 is, thus, dismissed without order as to costs. Consequently, connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment, along with Trial Court Records, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith for information. 7 16. All parties shall act on a server copy of the judgment and order uploaded from the official website of High Court at Calcutta. 17. Urgent photostat copy of this Judgment and Order be given to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)