HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA MAC APP No.6 of 2024 Smt. Namita Biswas, Daughter of Late Sukumar Biswas, Resident of Barjala, Near Agriculture Officer, P.O. Barjala, PS: West Agartala, District: West Tripura ----Appellant Claimant Petitioner (s) -Versus- 1. Md. Selim Miah, Son of Madan Miah, Resident of Bhati Abhoynagar (Bitarban), P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District: West Tripura, PIN:799 001 (Owner of TR-01-W-6139: Super Splendor Bike) 2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard, Second RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala, District: West Tripura, (Insurer of TR-01-W-6139: Super Splendor Bike) ---- Respondent Opposite Parties (s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishore Kumar Pal, Adv. Ms. Punam Muirasingh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasanta Sen Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv. Date of Hearing & Date of delivery of Judgment and Order : 28.07.2025 Whether fit for Reporting : NO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order(Oral) This appeal is preferred by the claimant Smt. Namita Biswas under Section 173 of MV Act challenging the judgment and award dated 13.09.2023 delivered by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC) 212 of 2019, for enhancement of the award. 02. Heard Learned counsel Mr. K. K. Pal along with Ms. P. Murasingh appearing on behalf of the appellant and also heard Learned Counsel Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the respondent owner and Learned Counsel Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf of the respondent OP No.2 i.e. the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard. 03. At the time of hearing Learned counsel for the appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the award dated 13.09.2023 delivered by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and submitted that in para No.16 of the award Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,573.00/- for the purpose of expenditure incurred for treatment and hospitalization. But the appellant had spent more than the said amount. But the Learned Tribunal only awarded a very meager amount in this head. He further submitted that towards rest and hospitalization a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for engagement of attendant and a further lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded for special diet, nutrition and the cost of transportation by the Learned Tribunal below. Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court referring para No.18 of the award and submitted that for the purpose of pain and sufferings only Rs.20,000/- is awarded which is also too less. In support of his contention Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court that before the Learned Tribunal the appellant filed her examination-in-chief as PW-1 and in para No.2 she narrated everything. For the sake of convenience, I would like to refer hereinbelow the relevant para No.2 of the examination-in-chief filed by the appellant which are as follows: “2. That on 03-07-2019 at about 19.55 hours I was proceeding towards a shop near Mahan Club at Barjala with a view to purchase some goods, at that time a motor bike bearing registration No. TR-01-W-6139 (Super Splendor) which was coming from Agartala direction with tremendous speed with rush and negligence manner and dashed behind me. I jolted out about 10 to 15 feet from where I was standing. As a result of said violent dashing I received severe head injury and injury upon my right ear. I also sustained severe bleeding injury upon my head. Immediately after the accident, the local people rushed to the spot and rescued me and brought to AGMC & GBP hospital. The attending doctor of AGMC & GBP hospital done stitches upon my cut injuries and I got admitted into the AGMC & GB P hospital, Trauma Centre as an indoor patient. After performing the stitching upon my cut injury, I was kept without any further treatment for about 3 hours and no senior doctor attend me. My relatives found the deterioration condition of me and in spite of repeated request of the relatives and requisition made for senior doctor by the junior doctors who were performing their duty in the Trauma Center, but no senior doctor was turn up. My relatives as well as well-wishers found that the progress of treatment in AGMC & GBP hospital was in poor condition. Considering my precarious condition, my relatives was voluntary discharged from the AGMC & GBP hospital at about 11.30 pm. on the date of accident by giving the option of own risk discharge. Immediately I was brought to ILS hospital, Agartala and Emergency Unit. Thereafter I was treated in I.C. Unit under constant observation of Neurosurgeon. The final diagnosis is following injuries. (i) SDH (Left frontal) temporoparietal contusion (right) (ii) Cut injury upon my head (iii) Decreased hearing from right ear I was treated in ILS hospital from 04-07-2017 to 16-07- 2019, though I was discharged from ILS hospital, but I could not come round fully well as I was filling acute head pain. The doctor of ILS hospital advised that for my head injury there would be prolong treatment and I have to attend after every 3(three) months at ILS hospital, Agartala. Till today I am undergoing treatment under the doctor of V.S. Chavan and others doctor of ILS hospital and my injury is not cured.” 04. It was further submitted that the appellant was admitted in ILS Hospital with effect from 04.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 and she sustained cut injury to her head and her hearing capacity became lower due to said accident. But the Learned Tribunal did not consider the said aspect and only awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. It was further submitted that the above part of her evidence remain unrebutted by the contesting opposite parties. Learned Tribunal below could award more enhanced amount. Regarding future loss of income the Learned Tribunal below did not award anything. But it was submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant that even after discharging from the hospital till today the appellant is undergoing treatment she cannot hear properly and even cannot speak properly. But the Tribunal below awarded very lesser amount and with that amount it would be difficult on her part to sustain the expenditures already been incurred by her. So Learned Counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 241 and another judgment in Ankur Kapoor vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2018) 1 SCC 136 prayed for enhancement of the award. 05. Learned Counsel for the owner Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury submitted that as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2, so the Learned Tribunal fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the respondent No.2. As such, the said respondent has got nothing to say regarding enhancement of award. 06. On the other hand, Learned Counsel Mr. R. Saha appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that admittedly before the Tribunal the insurance company did not file any written statement but before the Tribunal the appellant could not adduce any proper oral/documentary evidence on record to sustain her claim and as such the Learned Tribunal below rightly awarded the compensation to the appellant and based upon the evidence on record the appellant at this stage cannot take the plea that the amount awarded by the Learned Tribunal below be enhanced. He in support of his contention referred para nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal below and submitted that at the time of delivery of judgment Learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects and awarded the compensation for which there is no scope to interfere with the judgment and award for dismissal of this appeal. 07. In this regard I would like refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein in para No.6 and 7 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under: “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special 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 injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (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. 7.Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. 08. Now in the case at hand let us discuss about the subject matter of the claim petition. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Learned Tribunal seeking compensation alleging inter alia that on 03.07.2019 at about 19.55 hours the claimant was proceeding towards a shop near Mohan club at Barjala to purchase some goods and at that time a motor bike bearing registration No.TR- 01-W-6139 (Super Splendor) came therein with excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant from her backside resulting which she jolted out about 10 to 15ft from her original position and received severe bleeding injuries. Immediately she was taken to AGMC & GBP Hospital wherein she was admitted in the Trauma Centre and the attending doctor stitched her cut injuries but finding no potential treatment the appellant took voluntary discharge and was admitted in ILS Hospital with effect from 04.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 wherein Dr. V.S. Chavan of ILS Hospital attended her. It was further submitted that at the time of accident she was 52 years of age and her monthly income was Rs.61,075/-. So the appellant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-. It was further submitted that on this issue NCC PS Case No.2019/NCC/076 under Section 279/338 of IPC read with Section 184 of the MV Act was registered. Before the Tribunal the respondent OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement but the insurance company did not submit any written statement. However, the Learned Tribunal upon the pleadings of the parties framed the issues which runs as follows: (i) Is the claim maintainable in its present form and nature? (ii) Had the claimant petitioner suffered any kind of injury due to road traffic accident on the alleged date, time and place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of vehicle? If so, is the claimant petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? (iii) What should be the quantum of compensation and who shall be liable to pay the compensation? (iv) What other relief/reliefs is the claimant petitioner entitled to get? Page 8 of 12 09. In order to prove the issues documentary evidences were adduced by the claimant and finally on conclusion of enquiry Learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition by the judgment and award dated 13.09.2023. The operative portion of the judgment runs as follows: “The instant application under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioner is partly allowed and a sum of Rs.2,24,573.00 (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Three) only is awarded in favour of claimant-petitioner with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.10.2019 till the date of payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid by OP No.2 within a period of one month.” It is to be noted here that before the Tribunal the OP No.1 was examined as OPW1 and relied upon some documents which were marked as exhibits but the insurance company did not adduce any oral/documentary evidence on record. 10. I have seen the judgment and award delivered by the Learned Tribunal below. There is no dispute on record in respect of fact of accident on the alleged day and also the fact of filing the FIR by the informant and also the filing of chargesheet. Since the appellant in this appeal prayed for enhancement, let us see whether the judgment and award of the Tribunal was proper or not. 11. It is undisputed that the appellant was/is a Government servant. However, Learned Tribunal below in para No.16 based upon the exhibits awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,573.00/-. In this regard Learned Counsel for the appellant although submitted that this amount was meager. Page 9 of 12 But to substantiate this Learned Counsel could not draw attention of the Court showing that Learned Tribunal below overlooked or did not consider some more other cash memos and prescriptions in support of her injury. As such at this stage there is no scope on the part of this Court to enhance the amount. So I stand agree with the said amount of Rs.1,84,573.00/- awarded by the Learned Tribunal towards expenditure incurred for hospitalization and treatment by the appellant. Now in respect of attendant charges it appears that Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. From the evidence on record it appears that the appellant was admitted in ILS Hospital with effect from 04.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 i.e. for a period of thirteen days and prior to that she was also admitted in AGMC & GBP Hospital for a day. So during that period she must have attended by the attendants in the hospital at least by two attendants @750/- per head which comes to Rs.1500 per day. So for two attendants for 13 days the appellant has incurred expenses Rs.19,500/- but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. So in my considered view under this head the appellant is entitled to get Rs.19,500/- in place of Rs.10,000/-. Regarding special diet, nutrition and cost of transportation Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs.10,000/-. However relying on the judgment of the Apex Court as stated above under this head the appellant is awarded Rs.25,000/- in place of Rs.10,000/- and as such this Court awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards special diet, nutrition and cost of transportation to the appellant. Further on perusal of the judgment of the Learned Tribunal it appears that towards pain and sufferings Learned Tribunal below only awarded Rs.20,000/- which in the considered opinion of this Court the amount is too less. So under this head the appellant should be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- because due to accident the appellant might have sustained mental trauma and as she sustained injury to her head and ear although the Learned Tribunal below submitted that no fracture injury was sustained by the appellant. But this will persist. So the appellant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in place of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Regarding loss of income Learned Tribunal did not award any amount because it is the admitted position that the appellant is a Government employee and before the Tribunal the appellant failed to prove that she availed Earned Leave during the period of her hospitalization. Rather she might have received salary after availing Medical Leave as she was entitled to get the same. Before the Tribunal although she took the plea that she could not perform her duties for two months. But in this regard she could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate that she was any particular leave for two months. So it appears to this Court Learned Tribunal rightly decided the issue that appellant was not entitled to get any award towards loss of income. In respect of future medical expenses, Learned Tribunal came to the observation that as the appellant did not sustain any fracture injuries nor any deformities as such Learned Tribunal refused to award any amount towards that head. However, in the considered opinion of this Court she is also not entitled to get any award under the head of future medical expenses/treatment. However, as Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings so this head would cover the expenses of the future treatment if the same is at all requires for the treatment of the appellant. 12. Thus the appellant is entitled to get award for the purpose of treatment and hospitalization Rs.1,84,573.00/-. Rs.19,500/- for engagement of attendants, Rs.25,000/-(for special diet, nutrition and transportation cost), Rs.1,00,000 (for pain and sufferings) which in total comes to Rs.3,29,073/-. As there is no dispute on record from the side of the respondent insurance company regarding payment of compensation to the appellant. As such in the considered opinion of this Court the Learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation to the respondent insurance company. So the respondent insurance company be asked to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to get enhanced amount of Rs.3,29,073/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim petition to till the date of payment/realization and the amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent OP No.2 i.e. the insurance company to the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of delivery of the judgment. A copy of this judgment and order be furnished to the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant free of cost and a copy of this award be furnished to the Learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company free of cost for information and compliance. If by this time no award is deposited by the insurance company in that case the entire amount of compensation shall be deposited by the respondent insurance company to the Registry of the High Court within the stipulated period as indicated above. Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. With this observation this appeal is disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. JUDGE Moumita MOUMITA DATTA Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA Date: 2025.07.30 22:18:44 +05'30'