Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. in the concerning matter to Parimal Das, held that the person claiming compensation should receive the amount not more than what he claimed. However, this doesn’t mean that the court is powerless to not award more compensation than the amount claimed.
The Dispute emerged due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent causing 70% disability to the Appellant. The main issue raised by the Appellant, was to challenge the award passed by the MACT, where the monthly income of the injured was taken to be Rs. 5000 and the compensation was awarded accordingly.
The Bench agreed to the finding that the amount of monthly wages calculated y the MACT was very even than the minimum wages. Therefore, a basic amount of Rs.10,000 was taken to re-calculate the amount of compensation that would be awarded.
While relying on the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 enhanced the compensation amount by 10% as the Appellant was self-employed and was the age between 50 to 60 years. However, when the total amount i.e., Rs. 12,73,717, of all the expenses were calculated including Medical, Transportation, Actual loss of Income, etc, it turned out to be more than the amount claimed i.e., 10 lakh rupees. So, considering the present situation, the Bench instructed the insurance company to only pay the amount claimed by the Appellant, but this doesn’t restrict the power of the court to grant more compensation than what is claimed by the aggrieved.[Parimal Das v. Sukanta Pal, 2021 SCC OnLine Tri 647, decided on 22-12-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Counsel for Appellant:
Mr J. Majumder
Mr A.S. Lodh