SURAJIT NEOG Vs. M/S JAINEX INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant, in MAC Case No.534/1996, is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati, vide order dated 10.10.2002, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.3,54,200/ - has been awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant along with the interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment and directing the respondent No.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. to satisfy the said award, there being a contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company.

(2.) THE appellant as claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.9,80,000/ -, contending inter alia that on 27.04.1996 when he was travelling in the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS -01/D -0889 (Armada vehicle), a truck bearing Registration No.AS -01/C -8623 driven in a rash and negligent manner and coming from the opposite direction dashed against the Armada vehicle and as a result of which the appellant and other inmates of the said vehicle received grievous injuries and were hospitalized. It has further been pleaded that the appellant was completely bed ridden since the date of accident, who was advised absolute bed rest for 2(two) weeks, no walk for 8(eight) weeks and to review after 8(eight) weeks. The further contention is that he has not recovered fully from the injuries and as a result of the injuries sustained on his right leg, he became permanently disabled.

(3.) THE appellant in order to prove his case examined 3(three) witnesses including himself and proved 3(three) documents, namely, the first information report lodged with Jagiroad Police Station on 27.04.1996 (Ext. -1), the charge -sheet filed by the investigating agency (Ext. -2) and the seizure list issued by the investigating agency (Ext. -3). The certificate relating to the 50% permanent disablement has also been produced before the Tribunal. Neither the owner nor the insurance company adduces any evidence. The witnesses examined by the appellant, however, have been cross -examined by the insurance company.