SIKHA MALAKAR Vs. MONORANJAN RUDRAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.48,905.00 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No. 2), West Tripura in Title suit (MAC) No. 234 of 2009, this appeal is preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 28-8-2008, when the appellant was proceeding to her place of work on foot, at about 9-30/10 AM, she was knocked down by Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. TR-04-658 coming from behind near Jaharnagar Chowmohani along Assam-Agartala road and dragged her for about 15/20 cubits and ran over the lower portion of her body thereby causing serious injuries to her. She was then immediately shifted Kulai PHC in an unconscious condition, but was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital for better treatment due to the seriousness of her injuries. She was admitted at that Hospital and was treated there from 28-8-2008 to 29-9-2008. At the time of her discharge, she was, however, advised to attend the OPD of the Hospital after fifteen days. During the period of her treatment, she underwent two major operations. She was again admitted to the same Hospital as indoor patient on 16-10-2008 and was discharged on 21-10-2008 with an advice to attend OPD of the Hospital regularly. Till the time of filing the claim petition, she was under the treatment of Orthopaedic Surgeon of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala and Kulai Hospital. Ultimately, she became permanently disabled. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of said Maruti Gypsy by its driver. Prior to the accident, she was a daily labourer and used to supply labourers on commission basis. She also used to perform domestic activities to main her family. She used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000.00 per month from such occupations. She, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.21,25,000.00.

(3.) The claim petition was resisted by the owner of the vehicle (respondent 1) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent 2) by filing their respective written statements. The respondent No. 1 claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and not due to the fault of the driver of the vehicle. In any case, his vehicle being insured with the respondent No. 2, any liability for the accident may be satisfied by the respondent No. 2; he has no financial liability whatsoever. The respondent No. 2 in their written statement denied their liability to pay the compensation. The burden of proving the case lies upon the appellant by producing relevant documents including the driving license of the driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated the following issues: