1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 806 of 2023 Surya @ Surja Sk. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. For the Appellants : Mr. Ashiq Mondal Mr. Sujit Islam For the Respondents : Ms. Sucharita Paul Heard on & Judgment on : 08.05.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. The instant appeal was heard earlier and judgment was reserved. However, the matter was listed under the heading “For Hearing” for further clarification. 2. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present. 3. The claimant, Srya @ Surja Sk., filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Special Court (EC Act), Berhampore, Murshidabad, being M.A.C. Case No. 387 of 2015, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,49,500/- for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.02.2015 at about 12:00 Noon. At the relevant time, the claimant was standing beside a motorcycle near Bostal Gate at Madhupur along N.H. 34, when a truck bearing Registration No. WB-23B-5791, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, causing grievous injuries. The claimant 2 was treated in various hospitals for the injuries sustained in the accident and claimed to have lost his earning capacity 4. The owner of the offending vehicle appeared and filed a written objection but thereafter did not contest the case and the case proceeded ex parte against him. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. contested the aforesaid MAC case. 5. The Learned Tribunal as aforesaid disposed of the issues framed considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,03,200/- as well as an interest of 5% from the date of filing the case till the realization of the amount. 6. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/claimant submitted that the Learned Tribunal had erroneously considered the monthly income of the victim to be Rs. 4000/- and sought for enhancement of the same. It was further submitted that a sum of 25% compensation towards the element of future prospect was not awarded. It was further submitted that an enhanced sum over and above of Rs. 1,00,000/- should have been granted with regard to the component of pain and suffering. Compensation towards medical treatment was not awarded. Moreover, non pecuniary damages to the extent of 60% disability suffered by the victim as mentioned in the disability certificate marked as Ext.4 issued by the Medical Board Murshidabad Medical Collage and Hospital was not considered. 7. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company controverted the submissions of the Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants stating that the Learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the compensation awarded on the following grounds: 3 a. The victim was a temporary' employee of 'Murshidabad District Truck Driver and Helper Shramik Union'. The General Secretary of the, said Union, while deposing as PW4, before the Ld. Tribunal, confirmed the 'temporary employment' of the victim. It was further stated by PW4 that the victim received a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary from the said Union. In support of the above, PW4 produced one Income Certificate' issued by him on 25.03.2015, in favour of the victim, after his accident on 09.02.2015. b. PW4 however, could not produce register or voucher before the Ld. Tribunal to show that the injured claimant was receiving Rs. 7,000/-per month. from the aforesaid Union. Therefore, the Ld. Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of income of Rs. 4,000/- per month. c. The Medical Board of Murshidabad Medical College & Hospital, issued the Disability Certificate in favour of the victim. From the said "Disability Certificate' (exhibit 4) it was found that the victim suffered 60% 'permanent disability/loss of earning capacity' due to the above accident. Accordingly, the Ld. Tribunal computed the compensation on the basis of 60% loss of earning capacity of the victim. The Insurance Company submitted that the Id. Tribunal Judge was correct in considering the permanent disability' as well as 'functional disability' of the victim at 60%, in accordance with the Certificate issued by the Medical Board and such assessment is as per settled principles of law. 4 d. The claimant had produced some bills and prescriptions in connection with his treatment. The said documents were marked 'Y' (series) for identification. However, admittedly the claimant failed to prove any of the said documents in accordance with the settled principles of law. The said fact was also confirmed in the award passed by the Ld. Tribunal. 8. Considered the submission of the Learned Advocates representing both the parties. 9. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving license and other ancillary issues have not been disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/claimant, this Court restricts itself only to the points agitated by the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/claimant as well as respondent No.1/insurance company. 10. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2 The impugned award of Rs. 05,03,200/- is modified as follows: Monthly Income Future Prospect (25%) Annual income (Rs. 5000 x 12) Multiplier “14” Permanent disability 60% Pain & Suffering Pain & Suffering, loss of amenities And other non pecuniary damages Rs. 4000/- Rs. 1000/- Rs. 5000/- Rs. 60,000/- X 14 Rs. 8,40,000/- Rs. 5,04,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 10,04,000/- 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 2 (2009) 6 SC 121 5 Less Entitlement Rs. 10,04,000/- Rs. 5,03,200/- Rs. 3,99,200/- 11. The Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant submitted that the appellant/claimant has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5,03,200/-. The appellant/claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,99,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization. 12. The Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1/insurance company is to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 3,99,200/- along with interest as aforesaid before the office of the learned Registrar General High Court at Calcutta within 10 weeks from the date of passing of this order. 13. The office of the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall encash the said cheque and, thereafter, disburse the same to the present appellant/claimant as mentioned by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Judge Special Court (EC Act), Berhampore, Murshidabad being MAC Case No. 387 of 2015 on proof of proper identification of the appellant /claimant subject to payment of ad valorem Court’s fees within four weeks. 14. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 15. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 16. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) c.m. AR. Ct. 6