JITENDRA MALLICK Vs. PRIYA KUMAR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal putting into challenge the judgment and award dated 17.2.99 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 352 of 97, the claimant- appellant has sought enhancement of the award of Rs. 5,000/- only with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of presentation of the petition before the learned Tribunal on 30.7.97 on the ground that the said amount is utterly inadequate being not based on proper appreciation of the evidence particularly relating to the nature of injuries sustained by him in the accident.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the claim proceeding originates from an accident on 16.1.96 when the appellant was returning to Agartala from Charilam by a bus bearing No. TRS-8. It stopped near Amtali PS for disembarkment of some passengers when another vehicle (TRS-783) had dashed it and caused injuries to the passengers including the appellant. After one day's treatment in G.B. hospital at Agartala, he was discharged on 17.1 .96, but due to the injuries sustained by him he had lost 16 number of teeth which, apart from causing bodily pain and injury, deprived him from amenities of life. Claiming an amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by him in a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, the petitioner examined only himself and produced certain documents, namely, the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the accident and a photocopy of the discharge certificate issued from the hospital. While the FIR testified to the facts of the accident, the discharge certificate indicates only about the teeth injury in a road traffic accident without stating the number of teeth lost. Though in the claim petition it has been clearly stated that the appellant had lost 16 number of teeth, but in his deposition before the learned Tribunal he only stated that some of his teeth had been uprooted. He further claimed in his deposition that he spent Rs. 6,000/- towards his treatment.

(3.) The Oriental Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim contending, inter alia, that the injury sustained by the appellant leading to loss of teeth was not due to an accident involving the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, however, did not contest the claim pstition. Besides filing a written statement, the insurer adduced no evidence in support of the defence taken by it.