Saturday, November 25, 2023

Argument in MACC Case

 

District: 24 Parganas (South)

In     the   Court     of     the     Ld.    14th   Additional     District    Judge   at   Alipore

                                                 MACC No.  17 of 2010

                                                 Khurshid Ahmed

                                                                         ………….. Applicant

                                                                        Vs.

                                                Mr. Munna Dusad

                                                                      ……………… Opposite Party No.1  

                                                I.C.I.C.I. Lombard  General Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                                                       ……………. Opposite Party No.2   

WRITTEN        ARGUMENT      ON      BEHALF    OF     THE    APPLICANT   

That the instant claim case has been filed as per provisions of section 166 of the M.V.Act 1988, by the applicant on behalf of his minor son namely, Asjad Ahmed @ Ajad Ahmed @ Ashjad Ahmed who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 11.09.2009.

The fact, in brief, is that the accident occurred on 11.09.2009 at about 14.00 hrs when the victim was returning from his school along Topsia road and when he came in front of Sahini Hariana Bangla Hotel the offending vehicle bearing registration no. WB-41D-2215 (Tata 407) all on a sudden came over there at an abnormal high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed the victim Asjad Ahmed as a result the victim sustained injuries all over his body specially fracture of his right leg and thigh joint. Immediately after the accident the victim was removed to M.B.Nursing Home where he admitted on the same day and discharged on 17.09.2009 but due to pain the victim again admitted at Amri Hospital on 22.09.2009 and discharged on 10.10.2009 and thereafter due to dressing the victim was admitted that hospital in several time and lastly he was admitted to Amri Seba Sadan, Ballygaunge, on 29.10.2009 for skin grafting and after that operation he was discharged on 1.11.2009. Rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle no. WB-41D-2215 (Tata 407) was the sole responsible for this pathetic accident.

The victim due to this accident received severe injuries all over the body and also received fracture injury of his right leg and thigh joint. These injuries are permanent partial disablement within the meaning of section 142(b) of the M.V.Act – 1988 and which was corroborated by the disablement certificate issued by Dr. Somsankar Bhattacharya witness of P.W.5   and which has been marked exhibit-10(a).

In this case the petitioner adduced 6(six) numbers of witness to prove his case Viz. P.W.1 The father of the victim, P.W.2 Alauddin Mina- eye witness, P.W.3 Dipankar Das – Employee of M.B.Nursing Home, P.W.4 Somnath Bandhopadhayae - Employee of Amri Hospital, P.W.5  Dr. Somsankar Bhattacharya issued disablement certificate, P.W.6 Sri Swarup Kumar Paul-  Employee of Frank Ross Pharmacy.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.1 the father of the victim who filed this case for grant of compensation on account of injuries due to his minor son namely Asjad Ahmed sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle accident due to medical expences, pecuniary and non pecuniary damages, future prospect and others and for that he claimed Rs.5, 50,000/-(Rupees Five lacks fifty thousand) only towards compensation. The victim was the student of class V at the time of accident and he was aged about 10 years at the time of accident. Due to this accident the victim suffers his academic carrier. Applicant filed several documents to prove his case those documents are marked and exhibited 1 to 16.

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

No rebuttal evidence.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.2, Eye witness Alauddin Mina :

The eye witness Alauddin Mina who saw the accident on 11.09.2009, when he was standing near the place of accident and he established his deposition that one vehicle being no. WB-41D-2215 (Tata 407) dashed the victim and also who stated in his deposition that the abovenoted vehicle was the sole responsible for this pathetic accident. He removed the victim to M.B.Nursing Home with the help of other people. He also established in his deposition that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle being no. WB-41D-2215 (Tata 407) the accident took place.

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

The opposite party failed to rebut the testimony of the evidence given by the eye witness especially when the name of the victim is mentioned in the charge sheet which has been marked exhibit-4.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.3, Dipankar Das – Employee of M.B.Nursing Home:

He is the in-charge of the administration of the said nursing home. He stated in his deposition that the victim was admitted his nursing home on 11.09.2009 and discharged on 17.09.2009 which has been marked exhibit-8 and he also established the medical bill in respect of the treatment of the victim of Rs. 34,059/- which has been marked exhibit-9 series.

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

No rebuttal evidence.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.4, Somnath Bandhopadhayae - Employee of Amri Hospital:

He is the Executive of Medical records of Amri Hospitals, Dhakuria. He stated in his deposition that the victim was admitted the Amri Hospitals, Dhakuria on 22.09.2009 and discharged on 10.10.2009 under the care of Dr. Srinjay Saha and again the victim was under treatment at Amri Seva Sadan from 29.10.2009 to 1.11.2009 and which has been marked exhibit-11 and he also established the total medical bill in respect of the treatment of the victim of Rs. 2, 74,837/- which has been marked exhibit-11 series and also proved that the inpatient bill of Rs. 2100/- and he also established the medical bill in respect of the treatment of the victim which has been marked exhibit-12 and also proved OPD case sheet marked exhibit 13 series and he also established the post operation medical bill of Rs. 14,504/- which has been marked exhibit-14 series.

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

No rebuttal evidence.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.5, Dr. Somsankar Bhattacharya issued disablement certificate:

He is an orthopedic surgeon. He clinically examined the victim in his chamber and after perusal the treatment of documents, he issued a disablement certificate to the extent of 30% and which has been marked exhibit-10(a).

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

No rebuttal evidence.

It appears from the evidence of P.W.6, Sri Swarup Kumar Paul- Employee of Frank Ross Pharmacy:

He is an employee of Frank Ross Pharmacy attached to Amri Hospital. He established the medical bills in respect of the treatment of the victim of Rs. 30,793/- which has been marked exhibit-16 series.

Cross examined by O.P.No.2.

No rebuttal evidence.

In this case Insurance Company appeared with vakalatnama and they filed written statement but they did not adduce any evidence on their behalf to disprove the accident and/or disablement.

So, the evidence of claimant has been unchallenged.

Thus from the documentary and/or oral evidence it is proved that due to rash/negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle the victim received serious injuries on his person and disabled forever.

Moreover, sixteen (16) documents are lying with the case record. Those are as follows:-

Exhibit 1- voter card of victim

Exhibit 2- birth certificate of victim

Exhibit 3- Affidavit of 1st class magistrate

Exhibit 4- Charge sheet

Exhibit 5- Insurance policy of the offending vehicle

Exhibit 6- Certificate of registration of the offending vehicle

Exhibit 7- authorize letter

Exhibit 8- discharge certificate of M.B.Nursing Home

Exhibit 9- medical bills of M.B.Nursing Home

Exhibit 10- letter of authorization of Amri Sevasadan

Exhibit 10a- Disablement certificate

Exhibit 12- medical bills of Amri Sevasadan

Exhibit 13- OPD case sheet of Amri Sevasadan

Exhibit 14- Treatment summery of Amri Hospital

Exhibit 15- letter of authority of Frank Ross Pharmacy

Exhibit 16- medical bills of Frank Ross Pharmacy

From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and by the exhibited documents being nos.1 to 16 has been substantiated that:

1.     There was an accident on 11.09.2009.

2.     For the said accident the victim, Asjad Ahmed sustained severe injuries and total Rs.3, 56,293/- medical expenses for his treatment purpose.

3.     The vehicle being no. and his drive WB-41D-2215 (Tata 407) was the sole responsible of the aforesaid accident.

For the evidence of P.W.1 and documents being nos.1, 2 and 3, it has been substantiated that the victim was aged about 11 years at the time of accident and he was the student of class V at the time of accident and due to the above noted pathetic accident the victim suffer hia academic carrier.

Thus, by virtue of second schedule of the M.V.Act, 1988 the compensation can be assesses as under:-

Rs.15, 000/-(notional income) x 15 (multiplier) x 30 %( disablement of the victim) = Rs.67, 500/-

Total Medical expenses in respect of the treatment of the victim is Rs.3, 56,293/-

In addition to that the claimant is also entitled to Rs.1, 00,000/- for pain & suffering, hardship, frustration & other material loss. So, Applicant is entitled to get Rs. 5, 23,793/- along with interest from the date of filing the case till realization as per provision u/s 171 of M.V.Act 1988 as compensation.

In support of the instant case your petitioner does like to rely upon and to submit decisions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts those are as follows:-

1.     AIR 1995 (S.C.) Page 755 - Different heads.

2.     ACJ 1999 (S.C.) Page 809 – Medical bills.

 

Considering the facts and circumstances of this instant claim case, and after considering the documentary and oral evidence and the reported case laws referred, Your Honour may be pleased to pass an award for Rs. 5,23,793/- in favour of the applicant along with interest from the date of filling this case till realization in full and costs.

 

                                                                                        Filed by

 

                                                                           (Krisnendu Upadhaya)

                                                                           Advocate for Petitioner                                                                             

No comments:

Post a Comment