Gauhati High Court
Uttam Rabidas vs Siddikur Rahaman And Anr. on 4 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)ACC789, (2005)3GLR28
Author: I.A. Ansari
Bench: I.A. Ansari, T. Vaiphei
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By the impugned award, dated 12.8.1997, passed in TS (MAC) No. 49/94, the learned Member, MACT, West Tripura, has awarded, in favour of the claimant-appellant, a sum of Rs. 93,600 with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 16.12.1994, i.e., the date of filing of the claim application until the date of the award.
2. The claimant's case, in brief, was that he was a cobbler having a monthly income of Rs. 2,000 ; but as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing registration No. TR-01-1966, an accident took place, on 26.5.1993, near Bishramganj Petrol Pump, and he sustained several injuries on his person, which hospitalised him as an indoor patient from 26.5.1993 to 30.7.1993 and that even after his discharge from the hospital, he remained under treatment of doctors, he is permanently disabled, unable to walk and work as a cobbler and that he is unable to earn anything now.
3. Taking the income of the claimant as Rs. 1,000 on account of the fact that no documentary evidence has been brought on record and also taking into account the permanent disablement certificate produced by the claimant, which showed that he had become permanently disabled to the extent of 40% and also applying 17 as multiplier, the learned Tribunal came to conclude that the loss of income of the claimant was to the tune of Rs. 81,600. To this amount, the learned Tribunal added Rs. 5,000 for pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs. 7,000 as expenses for the treatment and, thus, awarded, in all, Rs. 93,600 as compensation. Challenging the amount of compensation as inadequate, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K Datta, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A. Gonchowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent-insurer. We have also heard Ms. A.S Lodh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-owner.
5. The limited question, which we are called upon to decide in this appeal is as to what should have been the just and fair compensation for the claimant.
6. While considering the above question, it is important to bear in mind that the evidence given by the claimant that he was a cobbler and he used to earn Rs. 2,000 per month and that after the accident, he is unable to walk and work and earns nothing have not been disputed by the respondents.
7. However, in view of the fact that the documentary evidence was not available on record, the learned Tribunal treated the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1,000 per month. We may point out that it may not be possible for a person to prove his monthly or annual income by production of documentary evidence. Hence, merely on the ground that no supporting documentary evidence has been produced, the unassailed evidence of a claimant as to what his occupation and income, at the time of the accident was, should not be discarded.
8. Situated, thus, we are of the view that in the face of the evidence, which the claimant has adduced, and also taking into account the fact that no supporting evidence is available on record as regards the income of the claimant, it would be ideal to treat the income of the claimant at Rs. 1,500 per month.
9. On account of the fact the claimant was, at the relevant time, 22 years old, the learned Tribunal applied 17 as multiplier. The correctness of the use of this multiplier has not been challenged before us and we also do not find that the use of 17 as multiplier is improper and/or illegal. Thus, treating the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 18,000 per month, if 17 is applied as multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 3,64,000. From the amounts, so calculated, if 40% is deducted as loss of income, the total loss of income comes to the tune of Rs. 1,22,400. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries, which the claimant sustained leading to his permanent disablement to the extent of 40%, the claimant ought to have been paid, at least, Rs. 15,000 for his pain and sufferings. We, therefore, add to the said amount of Rs. 1,22,400 a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation for the pain and sufferings of the claimant. As regard the expenses for the medical treatment, we find that the Tribunal was justified in treating the same as Rs. 7,000. So calculated, the total compensation turns out to be an amount of Rs. 1,44,000. However, the amount of Rs. 93,600 which was awarded by the learned Tribunal already stands paid to the claimant.
10. In view of the above, we hereby direct that the remaining amount of Rs. 51,400 shall be paid to the claimant-appellants within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application until payment of the entire amount. In the event of failure on the part of the respondent-insurer to pay the said amount of compensation with interest within the period as directed hereinbefore, the insurer-respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the balance amount of Rs. 51,400.
11. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.