COMMANDANT Vs. BINA PANI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 08 -11 -2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 541 of 2003 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - along with interest in favour of the claimant.

(2.) THIS case has some rather astounding facts. The claimant met with an accident on 28 -11 -1986. He was at the relevant time working as Assistant Sub -Inspector in the Police Department and, therefore, one can presume that he had some knowledge about the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. An F.I.R. was lodged with regard to the accident and the factum of the accident is not disputed. There is one certificate of the Resident Surgeon of the G.B. Hospital, Agartala which shows that the claimant was admitted with a history of having received injury in a road traffic accident and he had received the injuries over the occipital region. Since the petitioner was unconscious and restless, he was given some treatment and thereafter he was referred to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata for further treatment. At SSKM Hospital, a CT -scan was done which showed no abnormality whatsoever in the skull and it was stated that everything is normal. The claimant has also placed on record a receipt for a sum of Rs. 80/ - paid by the escort of the claimant as room rent in Tripura Bhavan, Kolkata during this period of 10(ten) days. Another letter which is on record is the letter dated 18 -09 -1989 of the Superintendent of Police (West), Tripura which shows that the claimant had been fully reimbursed for the medical expenses which were incurred by him at Kolkata. The claimant did not file any claim petition till the year 2003, i.e. for 17 long years.

(3.) COMING to the facts of the present case. The claimant at the time when the claim petition was filed was serving as an Assistant Sub -Inspector. The claimant is a police officer and he did not state that he had got medical reimbursement. Other than one or two documents, all the other documents of treatment relate to treatment which took place in the year 2003 and there is nothing on record to show that this treatment is in any way connected with the accident which took place in 1986. From the record which I have seen myself, I find that in 1996 nothing abnormal was found in the CT -scan. There is no doubt that the claimant remained admitted in hospital and initially he had some memory loss etc. but thereafter he seems to have recovered. The fact that he has recovered is also apparent from the fact that he continued to serve the department and worked with the department. The claimant very conveniently chose to file the claim petition just three months prior to his retirement. Therefore, though the claim petition may be maintainable, this Court will have to scrutinize the evidence with greater care with regard to the amount of compensation awarded.