RAMHARI DAKUA Vs. FOLU KANTI PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 27.08.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, in T.S.(MAC) No. 32/2000. The appellant while travelling from Agartala by a Jeep bearing No. TR-01-3677 to the BSF Camp at Gakulnagar for reporting to his duties, the said vehicle capsized for rash and negligent driving in the roadside. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, left hand, waist and other parts of the body. He was taken to the G.B.P. Hospital for treatment and thereafter on considering the nature of injuries, he was taken to Kolkata and confined to prolonged treatment. At the time of the accident, he was 28 years and working as a Constable in the 68 Bn. BSF. He claimed for recovery of damages that he sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence as led by the appellant, both oral and documentary, held that the accident occurred for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-3677 and that the appellant was attending the different hospitals namely, G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala, National Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata, B.S.F. Hospital at Salt Lake, Kolkata, Kolkata Medical College & Hospital and City Hospital, Berhampur for surgical intervention and medical treatment and from 30.12.1999 the appellant was undergoing treatment till the day of deposing in the Tribunal. It has been further held that the appellant was a young and unmarried person.

(2.) The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, observed that even though a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was claimed as the medical expenses/proper vouchers were not brought in the evidence. However, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for the said component on guess. The Tribunal also awarded the following components to form the compensation:

(3.) Ms. P. Deb(Paul), learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the assessment of compensation cannot be held just and adequate in view of the medical records as produced by the appellant in the Tribunal.