Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears on call for the respondent No. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed against the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT-cum-Additional District Judge (FTC), Karimganj in MAC Case No. 231/2005. This appeal is for enhancement of the award.

2. By filing the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant had projected that on 01.08.2005 at about 9:30 am while his son Abdul Hussain Borbhuiya was travelling from Kalain to Borkhola by bus bearing registration No. AS-11-A/3052, while the vehicle reached near Padritilla at Kalain, the said vehicle turned turtle and fell into the road side ditch due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result of the accident, the son of the appellant sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the appellant was taken to Kalain Community Health Centre where he had undergone treatment till 13.08.2005 as indoor patient. In the claim petition it was projected that due to the injuries he had become permanently disabled and was not fully cured and claimed that he could not do his professional and normal works. The appellant prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) with interest thereon.

3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the respondent No. 2 herein contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statement. On the basis of pleading, the learned Tribunal had framed the following 4 issues for determination:

(1). Whether the claimant has cause of action of this case?

(2). Whether the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question?

(3). Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent?

(4). To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled in law and equity?

4. The appellant/claimant examined two witnesses and the respondent No. 2 examined one witness. As per the evidence of PW1, as a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of his right forearm, fracture of left clavicle and grievous injuries on his chest, forehead and face. He claimed to have taken indoor treatment at Kalain CHC till 13.08.2005 and thereafter he attended the chamber of two doctors named therein but did not get any permanent relief. He also claimed that he was still unable to lift weight or do much work with his right hand and cannot move his left-shoulder freely and cannot do much work with his left hand which has rendered him partially disabled. He also claimed to have incurred an expense of Rs. 35,000/- till date. The following Exhibits were proved by him:-

(1). Accident information report (Exhibit-1),

(2). Injury Report (Exhibit-2),

(3). Discharge Certificate (Exhibit-3),

(4). Prescription of Kalain CHC (Exhibit-4),

(5). Prescription by Doctor (Ext-5)

(6) Doctor's prescription (Ext-6),

(7) Original Cash memos [Exhibit-7(i) to 7(iv)],

(8). Prescription issued by another Doctor (Exhibit-8),

(9). X-Ray report (Exhibit-9) and

(10). X-Ray plates (Exhibit-10).

5. In his cross-examination PW1 had stated that he was travelling with the injured at the time of the accident, and that he had also lodged an Ejahar for the said accident. It was denied that the same was not submitted in the case. He had also submitted that he had filed X-ray plates and X-ray report in the case.

6. PW2, Azir Uddin Laskar has corroborated the case of the appellant. In his cross-examination he had stated that he was also travelling in the same bus which was involved in the accident and had also sustained injury.

7. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the insurer had examined Sri Krishnapad Roy, their Legal Assistant as DW1. The said witness proved from Ext-C i.e. letter from D.T.O., Aizawi, Mizoram that Driving licence No. 31521/MZ/Prof was issued in the name of one Mr. Lalsanga Lushai of Aizawl, and he had de