1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and also heard learned counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent claimant petitioner. None appears on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR01B1440 (Bus).

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2023 delivered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khowai, Tripura in connection with case No. TS (MAC) No.14/2019. By the said judgment and award learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.12,48,417/- along with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. from 20.08.2019 to till the date of actual payment and fastened the liability of payment of compensation up on the appellant Insurance Company.

3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company first of all drawn the attention of the court that in this case the learned Tribunal although has awarded total sum of Rs.12,48,417/- under different heads but at the time of determination of compensation, the amount determined by the Tribunal appears to be excessive, unreasonable and without any evidence on record.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that towards the head of expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing foods and miscellaneous expenditure Rs. 4,48,417/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal, which appears to be an excessive one. In this regard, no sufficient evidence could be produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. Regarding future treatment and check-up Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded and towards damages for pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded.

5. According to learned counsel, the amount awarded under the said heads are also excessive and towards of loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded and regarding loss of disability and disfigurement further Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded in absence of cogent evidence on record. So learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be exorbitant for which the interference of the court is required.

6. It was also further submitted by the learned counsel that since the petitioner is serving under TSR, it may so happen that he has reimbursed the medical expenses from his department and in spite of that he has filed the claim petition again for which the same was not maintainable. It was further submitted that being a government servant the petitioner cannot claim double benefits and so he urged before this court to take note of this fact and also prayed for modification of the award.

7. On the other hand learned counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the respondent claimant submitted that due to the alleged accident the eye of the claimant has been totally damaged and he has become a disabled person. In support of his contention he relied upon certificates issued by the Disability Board and further submitted that from the evidence on record, it will transpire that from Agartala he had moved towards Kolkata with the help of support persons and for that he had to incur huge amount for meeting up all the expenses and still the claimant is undergoing treatment.

8. It was further submitted that although the claimant was expecting some more amount because due to accident he has sustained huge amount of financial loss but the Tribunal only awarded a very meager amount which needs to be interfered with and the amount awarded needs to be enhanced and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company and urged for dismissal of this appeal.

9. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent claimant that in course of examination of PW-1 the Tribunal itself examined the claimant in this regard with the following question:

               “Q.1. Have you received any medical reimbursement from your department concerning your treatment regarding accidental injuries?

               Ans: No.

               Q.2. Are you getting your salary regularly with increment, etc., after the accident?

               Ans: Yes.”

               From the aforesaid oral evidence on record, it is crystal clear that he did not claim any medical reimbursement from his department regarding his treatment and once the claimant has given statement on oath before this court being a government servant, as such, there is no scope to presume that he has availed double benefits i.e. one from his department and another before the Tribunal. So learned counsel asked for imposing costs upon the appellant in this regard for making such irrelevant submissions.

10. In this case the claimant petitioner Kumar Joy Debbarma (Rifleman No.09130125) submitted one claim petition to the Tribunal alleging inter alia that on 18.01.2016 he was proceeding towards Agartala from Gokulnagar TSR First Bn HQ, with one rifleman Sri Chelaram Shahu by riding a motor bike bearing No.TR01C0974 as per the instructions of the authority. Chelaram had valid driving license and the claimant was a pillion rider. The bike was possessed by the DGP Tripura. When the claimant petitioner reached near Sabuj Sangha at about 6.45 am on Sabroom-Agartala road at that time one Bus bearing No.TR01B-1440 was coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the bus the rider of the bike reduced the speed and stopped the bike on the extreme left side of the road but the driver of the bus dashed against them and fled away leaving the spot for which the respondent claimant petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Local people shifted the petitioner to the Hapania Hospital from where he was referred to GB Hospital.

               Subsequently, he was referred to National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta on emergency basis on 08.01.2016. Thereafter, he was taken to National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta on 19.01.2016. Four persons escorted him and one doctor also accompanied him to Kolkata. He was admitted in the said centre on 19.01.2016 and was discharged on 03.02.2016.

11. He was given conservative treatment and thereafter, he was referred to consult Ophthalmologist Dr. Piya Sen for left eye injury. He underwent evisceration of left eye with repair of upper lid injury under GA No.22/01/2016 and he was under regular treatment of Dr. Piya Sen.

12. The injury sustained by the petitioner was grievous in nature and at the time of accident the injured was 26 years old. The attending doctor of National Neurosciences Centre, Calcutta removed the left eye of injured and issued a certificate to that effect stating that in future the respondent petitioner cannot perform any heavy duty. A disability certificate was issued in his favour by the Medical Board of District Disability, Dhalai and he was visiting Kolkata on regular basis for check up.

13. It was further submitted that one escort Goutam Bhattacharjee took the injured to Kolkata on 08.11.2016 and returned back from Kolkata on 16.11.2016 and for his daily work one helper was essential and one attendant was engaged by his family members and he had to bear the monthly expenditure of Rs.4000/- for the attendant. Due to disablement he has become unable to perform his duty. The department will not allow any promotion to him in future. So, for the purpose of treatment he had to sustain expenditure of huge amount and due to accident he also could not attend to his duties for six months as he lost one eye and according to the petitioner the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.TR01B-1440. A criminal case was also registered in this regard.

14. The OP contested the case by filing written objection denying the assertions of the claimant petitioner and the OP No.1 also took the plea that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was duly insured with the Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and the vehicle had all the relevant documents, and further submitted that since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, so the liability may be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

15. The OP No.2, i.e. the present appellant herein also filed a written statement denying the aspersions of the claimant petitioner and submitted that the claim petition is subjected to strict proof by the claimant petitioner. Upon the pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

               “ I S S U E S

               (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

               (II) Whether on 18.01.2016 at about at about 06.45 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a bus bearing Regn No. TR-01-B-1440 coming from Agartala side in high speed dashed the victim/claimant-petitioner Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma who was a pillion rider of a motor bike bearing No. TR-01-C-0974 being driven by one Chelaram Sahu near Sabuj Sangha on Sabroom-Agartala road following which the claimant-petitioner fell on the ground and received grievous injuries on various parts of his body;

               (III) Whether due to such accident the claimant-petitioner is entitled to get any compensation; as prayed for;

               (IV) Whether OP No.1 is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TR-01-B-1440 (Bus) and said vehicle was having valid documents including insurance Policy;

               (V) Whether the OP No.2 (Insurance Company) is the Insurer of the offending vehicle;

               (VI) If any compensation is payable, then who is liable to pay the amount and what will be the quantum of compensation to be paid to victim?”

16. Before the Tribunal, the claimant petitioner was examined as PW-1 and he adduced three other witnesses namely Smt. Subhadra Debbarma, Gautam Bhattacharjee and Dr. Madhusudhan Das who were examined as PWs No.2-4 and the documents relied upon by the claimants like certified copy of the FIR, Seizure Lists, Injury reports, Final report, Discharge certificate, Referral certificate, Disability certificate, Medical prescriptions, money receipts, cash memos, final bills etc. were marked as Exhibit 01 to Exhibit 16/2.

17. The owner of the vehicle was examined as OPW No.1 and the documents relied upon were marked as Exhibit A-D. Finally, on conclusion of enquiry the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant by order dated 12.09.2023 the operative portion is as follows:

                “ O R D E R

               It is therefore ordered that the petitioner, Sri Kumar Joy Debbarma is entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,48,417/- (rupees twelve lakh forty eight thousand four hundred and seventeen) only in total along with interest @7% per annum thereupon from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. from 20.08.2019 till payment.

               The OP No.02, the Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to make the payment of said compensation along with interest within 30 days from today.

               Furnish copy of this award to all the parties free of cost.

               The case is disposed of on contest.

               Enter the result in relevant register and in CIS.”

18. I have heard both the sides and perused the records of the learned Tribunal below and the evidence on record and along with the judgment delivered by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, there is no dispute on record regarding the fact of accident on the alleged date and time. It is also the admitted position that due to accident the petitioner has sustained grievous injury and he had to be shifted outside the state for his better treatment and one of the eyes was badly damaged.

19. In this regard, to substantiate the claim the petitioner submitted all the medical papers, certificates, prescriptions, tickets were submitted and the learned Tribunal below after considering the oral/documentary evidence on record awarded Rs.4,48,417/- towards expenses relating to treatments, hospitalization, medicines etc. I have perused the same.

20. In the considered opinion of this court the learned Tribunal rightly awarded the said amount in favour of the claimant. It is also on record that the claimant petitioner is still undergoing treatment. So towards cost of future treatment and check up learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- which in the considered opinion is also appears to be properly awarded. But regarding damages for pain and suffering learned Tribunal below awarded Rs.2,00,000,/- which in the considered opinion of this court was not proper, rather it should be Rs.1,00,000/- only. Because the learned Tribunal did not indicate anything in specific as to why the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded. But regarding loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded and loss of disability and disfigurement Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal.

21. Since there is evidence on record that the claimant sustained disability due to accident and in support of his contention he relied upon the certificate issued by the Disability Board as Exhibit–6 i.e. on 22.09.2016 issued by the District Disability Medical Board, Dhalai District which shows blindness with LE=ENOPTHALMOS 40% with further recommendation to review after five years and another disability certificate dated 11.11.2021 by which further 30% disability was decided by the District Disability Board. 22. Since the petitioner is a person serving under TSR, Tripura so it is quite natural that there was very limited scope on his part to perform any hard work and there is very limited scope on his part to get any future promotion.

23. So the observation of the learned Tribunal towards loss of disability and disfigurement and award of Rs.2,00,000/- in the considered opinion of this court was rightly awarded and there was no infirmity in that regard.

24. So after hearing both the sides it appears to this court that excepting the head of damages for pain and suffering learned Tribunal rightly decided and determined the quantum of the compensation and awarded the amount under different heads for which except one head there is no scope to interfere with the rest part if any as decided by the learned Tribunal. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.

25. The award delivered by learned Tribunal below dated 12.09.2023 is modified to the extent that the respondent claimant petitioner shall get Rs.11,48,417/- after modification of head towards for damages for pain and suffering to Rs.100,000/- from the appellant Insurance Company and the appellant Insurance Company shall pay the said amount of Rs.11,48,417/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. with effect from 20.08.2019 till the date of actual payment within a period of two months from the date of this judgment/award.

26. The amount awarded by this court shall be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company to the learned Tribunal below within the stipulated period.

27. With this observation, the present appeal is modified and partly allowed.

Send down the records to the learned trial court along with the copy of this judgment.

Supply a copy of this judgment to learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and also a copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent claimant.