STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. KHIKAN CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a motor accident on 3.6. 1994, the claimant-respondent sustained injuries for which he filed a claim petition, which was registered as T.S. (MAC) 128 of 1995. On 10.6.1998 the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 65,000/- only as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 17.5.1995, when the claim petition was filed. The offending vehicle being owned by the State Government, appellants herein, it was directed that the said amount of compensation would be paid by the said appellants. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The short fact giving rise to the said proceeding is that on 3.6.1994 the claimant-respondent was returning from Gorkhabasti by a scooter bearing registration No. TRM-6142. One Asis Dutta was driving the scooter while the claimant-respondent was the pillion rider. When they reached Buddha Mandir on Agartala-Airport road, a mini truck bearing registration No. TRP-199 of the Tripura State Rifles (for short 'TSR') knocked down the said scooter causing hurt to the claimant-respondent, who was immediately taken to the G.B. Hospital. He was admitted to the hospital and treated there as an indoor patient for a period of 37 days and thereafter on 9.7.1994 he was released from the hospital. The discharge certificate shows that he sustained compound and multiple fractures on his right leg. An FIR was lodged by one Biswajit Saha (not examined) on the same day alleging that due to wrong driving of the police vehicle the accident had taken place.

(3.) The State appellants being the owner of the vehicle contested the claim contending, inter alia, that due to certain mechanical defect the policed vehicle had fallen on a drain and just at that time one hospital Ambulance was coming from the opposite direction and behind it the scooter with Asis Dutta and the claimant-respondent was also coming and due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter it dashed against the police vehicle. Thus the contention of the State appellants was that for the accident there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle.