(1.) THIS appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the minor Sanjoy Acharjee and is directed against the award dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala,whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 2,55,000/ - along with interest in favour of the claimant and assessed the compensation as follows:Treatment expenses: Rs.50,000/ -Future treatment:Rs.25,000/ -irfare:Rs.40,000/ -Loss of disability:Rs. 2,25,000/ -Rs. 3,40,000/ -The Tribunal, however, held that the claimant was entitled toonly 75% of the amount on account of contributory negligence and,thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.
(2.) ,55,000/ - 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petition was filed on the allegation that the petitioner, a minor boy was aged about 5 years at the relevant time. According to the claimant on 12.06.2004 the minor was a student of nursery class. It is alleged that the claimant along with father went towards Battala on the scooter being driven by the father. When the scooter reached near Milan Sangha near Mouchak Club the scooter was stopped since the minor wanted a chocolate. According to the claimant the father brought the scooter to a stationary condition, got down to purchase a chocolate and in the mean time a One Ton truck bearing No. TRP 411 belong to the Home Guard Organization came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter resulting in injuries to the claimant.
(3.) THE mother of the claimant stepped into the witness box and filed an affidavit in support of her claim. She is not a witness to the accident and, therefore, her statement cannot be relied upon as far as the issue of negligence is concerned. However, the claimant also examined one Sri Partha Majumder as PW 2 and he stated that his house is just behind the Mouchak club and when on 12.06.2004 he came out of his house to go to Bishalgarh he found that the scooter was standing on the left side of the Bishalgarh -Agartala road and one child was standing on the scooter. While the witness was waiting for a bus on the opposite side he saw the offending truck coming from the northern side to the southern side at a high speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and this the truck hit the scooter and then it dashed with an auto rickshaw. According to this witness the driver of the truck was drunk. In cross examination he reasserted that the truck first hit the scooter and then the auto rickshaw.