The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for injuries under the MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.K. Barkataki, the learned counsel for the ASTC (respondent Nos. 1 & 3). None appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. It is seen that the notice sent upon the respondent No. 2 returned back with a postal remark "Dead". Therefore, there is no other option but to hear the appeal without the respondent No. 2, since he has not been substituted by his legal heir.

3. The appellant being aggrieved with the Judgment & Award dated 09.12.2013, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari in MAC Case No. 11/2011 has preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation that was awarded to him.

4. The case of the appellant in brief is that on 30.08.2009 when he was coming towards Nalbari mid-town on a bicycle, he was knocked down from behind by a Bus, belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 & 3, bearing registration No. AS-20/0942. As a result, the appellant sustained severe injuries. He was brought to SMK Civil Hospital in Nalbari but due to want of better medical facilities, he was shifted to Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home, and then to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital in Guwahati. He was admitted in the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 02.09.2009 as an Indoor Patient and he was discharged on 08.09.2009. As a result of the accident and due to the injury sustained by him, he could not walk properly and was advised by the Doctor to undergo Physiotherapy. Accordingly, the appellant took Physiotherapy at "Care Home" in Nalbari for a total number of 369 days.

5. The appellant therefore filed a claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nalbari, which was registered as MAC Case No. 11/2011 and he claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for the injury and loss suffered by him. The appellant submitted a claim under Section 140 as well as Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). The appellant in order to establish his claim examined 2 witnesses, including himself. The respondent ASTC did not examine any witness. The learned Tribunal consequently passed the impugned Judgment & Award on 09.12.2013, awarding the appellant a sum of Rs. 15,600/- (Rupees fifteen thousand six hundred) only as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be paid by the Managing Director, ASTC and the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Driver of the vehicle involved and the respondent No. 2 in the present appeal.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal on 11.03.2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

7. Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was admitted to the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 02.09.2009 and discharged on 08.09.2009. During his hospitalization, the Doctor advised him to undergo Physiotherapy since he was not able to walk and move without the aid of a stick. Accordingly, the appellant took physiotherapy from 17.05.2010 up to 08.12.2010. Thereafter, since his condition did not improve, he took further Physiotherapy from the month of January, 2011 up to the month of October, 2011. In all, he was under Physiotherapy treatment for 369 days. In support of his claim, the appellant exhibited Certificate issued by the Physiotherapist as Exhibit-8 (xxvi) and Exhibit No. 8 (xxvii). The learned counsel further submits that the appellant prior to the accident was a Satriya Dance Teacher and for which, he was being paid monthly salary by Shivaam Suralay Songeet Kala Kendra School, Paschim Tamulpur in the district of Baksa amongst others. He submits that in support of his claim, the appellant also exhibited Certificates issued by the Dance Schools. Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel submits that the documents exhibited by the appellant were not objected to by the respondents and therefore, the learned Tribunal in consideration the