KASHINATH SADHU Vs. LILA TRANSPORT COMPANY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated March 26, 2006 passed by the learned Judge (Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal), Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2005. By the impugned order the learned Court below allowed the claim of the petitioner only for Rs. 30,271/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Two Hundred Seventy One only). The appellant has claimed, in this appeal that he should be awarded an enhanced compensation to Rs. 4 lakhs. In his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant had claimed that on July 2, 2003, while he was returning home from Katwa by the bus bearing no. W.B.-41/9292 due to a rash and negligent driving by the driver, the said bus capsized on Katwa-Natunhut Road and he himself together with some other passengers of the bus suffered severe injuries. According to the appellant, after the accident he was taken to Mangalkote Primary Health Centre and thereafter, he was shifted to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. The appellant claimed that in spite of undergoing a long treatment at the said hospitals, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 40% which was duly certified by the doctors of Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. At the time of the said accident he was 52 years old, from his hardware business, he used to earn a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- and after meeting with the said accident, due to the permanent disability suffered by him, he cannot carry on his said business properly and he has to regularly visit the doctor for his treatment. Accordingly, the appellant filed the claim petition before the learned Court below claiming compensation for Rs. 4 lakhs against the respondent no. 1, the owner of the said bus and the respondent no. 2 Insurance Company with whom the said bus was insured. In support of his above claim before the learned Court below, the appellant disclosed certain documents including a certificate issued by the doctors of the Burdwan Medical College and Hospital about the disability suffered by him in his body.

(2.) Although, the opposite party no. 1, that is, the owner of the said bus entered appearance before the learned Court below, but ultimately did not contest the claim case. It was the opposite party no. 2 Insurance Company which filed its written statement and contested the claim of the appellant before the learned Court below. In its written statement, the opposite party no. 2 Insurance Company denied all material allegations made by the appellant in his claim petition. On the allegations made by the appellant in his claim case and the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 Insurance Company in its written statement the learned Court below framed the following issues:

(3.) The appellant alone adduced evidence before the learned Court below. So far as the first, fourth and fifth issues are concerned, the learned Court below found that the same were not pressed by anybody, there was no material on record to decide the said issues in the negative and as such decided all the said issues in the affirmative. After considering the both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant, the learned Court below also decided the aforementioned second and third issues in the affirmative. With regard to the sixth issue, that is, whether the appellant is entitled to get compensation as claimed for and if so what would be the quantum of money and who is/are liable to pay the same, the learned Court below found that the appellant had proved that he has spent Rs. 30,000/- for his treatment.