Point of Law: There is no such medical evidence that due to injury sustained by claimant he was prevented from doing his business or there is any loss of his future prospect.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order, dated 07.03.2015, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 2149/2007 (1283/2007).

3. It is to be mentioned here that the appellant, as claimant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati, which was accordingly registered as MAC Case No. 2149/2007 (1283/2007), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000 (Rupees two lakhs seventy thousand only) for sustaining injury in an accident which took place near Kalipur Branch of State Bank of India, at about 9:00 am, on 12.04.2007.

4. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, is that on 12.04.2007, at about 9:00 a.m., the claimant/appellant was travelling by the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. As-01/AA-3187 (Auto-van), and when the vehicle reached near Kalipur Branch of State Bank of India met with an accident causing injury in his person and accordingly GDE entry was been made at Jalukbari P.S vide No. 365, dated 12.04.2007.

5. The O.P. No. 1, i.e. the insurer of the offending vehicle, and the O.P. No. 3, i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle, did not contest the case by filing their written statement and hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against them. However, the O.P. No. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle, contested the case by filing his written statement. The O.P. No. 2, in his written statement, took the plea that the offending vehicle was not driven in rash and negligent manner by the O.P. No. 3 at a relevant time of accident and further it is stated that the offending vehicle is duly insured with the O.P. No. 1, i.e. the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The claimant/appellant adduces evidence as CW-1 and to establish his case, he also adduced evidence of two others witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by the O.P. No. 2. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments from both sides, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, passed the impugned judgment and order, dated 07.03.2015, wherein the claimant/appellant was awarded which Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment made by the O.P. No. 1/The Insurance Company.

6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2015, passed by the learned Member MACT No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant on the ground that the learned Member, MACT, failed to consider the fact that the appellant/claimant has spent a sum of Rs. 22,560.32 in medicine and the value of fish purchased by him, which was a perishable in nature, are completely damaged in the accident and for which, it has to be included while assessing the award. Further, the learned Member MACT, failed to give compensation for mental pain and agony, for loss of amenities and also for future prospect and disablement as well as for expenditure in special diet during his treatment. And only awarded the lump-sum compensation amounting to Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) to the claimant/appellant for the injury he sustained in the accident and which itself is biased and contrary to the law and is liable to be modified by awarding suitable, just and proper compensation to the appellant.

7. In this context, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that as per medical report, there was no fractured injury sustained by the appellant except soft tissue injuries. Moreso, there is no loss of ameni