DULAL CHANDRA DEB Vs. ABU MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 28 -09 -2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (MAC) 398 of 2003 whereby an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ - was awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 06 -12 -2002 when he was returning home on a bicycle through Kunjaban road, truck No. TR -01 -1549 belonging to Abu Mia and insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the bicycle causing injuries to him. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/ -, but during the pendency of the claim petition he filed an application for amendment that on 24 -09 -2003 he suddenly fell down from the stairs of his house and suffered another fracture. The claim of the petitioner was that he fell down on account of the injuries sustained in the earlier accident and, therefore, he should be awarded compensation for this second injury also.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The discharge certificate issued by the G.B. Hospital shows that the claimant was admitted there on 06 -12 -2002 and discharged from the hospital on 12 -12 -2002 with head injury. He was referred to the SSKM Hospital. Therefore, the claimant remained in the hospital at Agartala for 6(six) days. It is also apparent that thereafter the claimant and his attendants had to fly by air to Kolkata. The case of the petitioner is that at Kolkata he could not get admission in SSKM Hospital and, therefore, he went to AMRI Hospital where he was admitted on 12 -12 -2002 and discharged 11 days later on 23 -12 -2002. The diagnosis was cerebral contusion with bilateral subdural hygroma. With regard to condition at discharge, it is noted "no neurological deficit except slightly impaired mental function". Thereafter, the claimant went again to AMRI Hospital for follow up treatment on 25 -01 -2003 and this time no neurological deficit was found and there is no mention of even slight impairment of medical function. It thus appears that the claimant had totally improved after the second treatment on 25 -01 -2003. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the learned Tribunal that the second fall had nothing to do with the first accident. The patient has been described to have fully recovered in January, 2003 and if he falls after 8(eight) months in September, 2003, he cannot connect the same with the previous accident.