Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an attempt should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical disability but also for loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy usual amenities of life.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.I. Kathar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. The claimant as appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the order of dismissal passed by the member, MACT, Shankardevnagar, Hojai, dated 17/05/2014 in MAC case no 468(N) 2012.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12/01/2012 at about 4 PM while the claimant was proceeding towards Tarabasa under Howraghat police station from Loringthepi by riding his motorcycle bearing no AS09/7725 through National Highway, at that time one vehicle (Scorpio Hawk) bearing no AS09B/1079 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the claimant from his behind as a result he fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries on his person. Due to the alleged accident, his right leg had been fractured. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon and then he was referred to GNRC, Guwahati. He was admitted to GNRC, Guwahati on the date of incident wherein he was treated as an indoor patient. Subsequently, the claimant also had undergone treatment at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital and medical centre at Patna. As per the claim petition the claimant had incurred expenditure of Rs.10,000,00/-(Rs. Ten Lakhs) for his treatment. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company.

4. It is pertinent to say here that on the first occasion none of the respondent including the insurance company did not turn up before the Tribunal as such the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. After hearing the claimant side, ex-parte judgment was delivered on 19/08/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.5,53,949/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine only) in favour of the claimant/appellant. Subsequently insurance company filed a petition before the Tribunal under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC praying to vacate the ex-parte order and allow them to contest the case. Accordingly, prayer of the insurance company was allowed by vacating the ex-parte order. The insurance company had submitted their written statement before the Tribunal and thereafter, P.W-1 was cross examined. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR and the claimant had failed to produce any document for his treatment at B.P Hospital Nagaon wherein he was initially treated after the accident. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the claimant did not produce any witness who had lifted him from the place of accident to the hospital and also failed to produce any of the witnesses who had seen the accident. Thus, the claim of the claimant was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of genuineness of the accident which occurred on 12/01/2012. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial court has committed grave error in not considering the accident information report and discharge report of the hospitals which were exhibited during trial.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant has also contended that the tribunal appears to have been hyper technical in looking for a document of B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon where the claimant was initially treated. Noticing the serious condition of the claimant he was immediately referred to higher authority for better treatment and at that critical moment saving the life of the claimant was much more important for his family members than to procure any document from the said B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that the tribunal has completely lost sight of the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a benefic