SUDHANGSHU SEN Vs. NANDALAL DEB BARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the learned member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) in T.S (MAC) 373 of 1997, whereby an amount of Rs.10,000/- only was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant.

(2.) THE appellant/applicant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'M.V.Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala against the opposite parties claiming compensation for sustaining injuries in a motor accident occurred on 13.2.1997 stating inter alia that at about 7.10 pm, while he was coming from his house at Joynagar to College Tilla, the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-9205 (M/C) (Scooter) hit him from back side at Math Chowmuhani and as a result he fell down on the road. He received grievous injuries on his person. THE offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and as a result the said accident took place. THE appellant, after accident, was attended by Dr. J C Saha and thereafter he was treated by Dr. Monoj Chakraborty and Dr. B.C.Poddar. He was also under treatment in G.B.Hospital, Agartala till filing of the petition claiming an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- only as compensation for the cost of treatment, suffering from pain and agony and loss of income. THE appellant claimed that due to accident he received serious injuries on his middle finger of right hand abrasion injuries on various parts of his person including forehead. THE wound on his forehead turned to serious condition gradually and he was referred to Guwahati for treatment of his left eye where he was operated requiring him to spend about Rs.40/45 thousand.

(3.) THE issue Nos. 3 and 4 were discussed and considered, together. In view of the decision, in respect of issue Nos.1 and 2, learned tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to get compensation as per provisions under the M.V.Act. Thus, the issue No.3 was also answered in favour of the appellant. But the learned tribunal awarded much less amount of compensation to the dissatisfaction of the appellant.