RAJESH REANG Vs. SUNIL DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and cross objection are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 18 -11 -2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (MAC) 343 of 2007.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition in which he alleged that on 09.04.2007 at about 1 -30 p.m. he stopped the offending vehicle which is a Tipper truck bearing registration No. TR -01 -F -1688 and when he attempted to board the truck, the driver all of a sudden started the truck and as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. In the claim petition it was alleged that the claimant was working as an assistant -cum -cleaner but neither in the claim petition nor in the evidence has he stated with whom he was working as assistant -cum -cleaner. He has neither named his employer nor has he given the number of the vehicle in which he was working as assistant -cum -cleaner. Even in an inquiry to be held under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant must give some information. If he claims to be in employment, the minimum information which is required is the name of the employer, the place of employment and the salary which the claimant was getting. Shockingly, in the claim petition it is mentioned that the name and address of the employer is not known and would be furnished later on. How can any person who is 20 years of age and is filing the claim petition himself states that he does not know the name of his employer and will furnish the name later on? This only is a means of filling up the lacunae in the case at a later stage which cannot be permitted. The admitted facts are that the claimant remained in hospital for 71 days. He suffered a fracture of the leg. He remained under treatment for a fairly long time and a disability certificate has been issued which shows that the claimant is suffering from mild stiffness of the left ankle and the disability has been assessed at 15%. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 95,550/ - under the following heads: -

(3.) IT is urged by Sri A. Nandi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the award is very much on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. His main claim for enhancement is that no amount has been awarded for attendant charges and that the amount awarded for pain and suffering is on the lower side.