Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.7.1998 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 275 of 1990, the claimant-petitioner before the Tribunal below has filed this appeal.
2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that on 10.1.1990 at about 9.15 a.m. when the appellant was standing on the left flank of Cuttack-Machhagaon road near Jagatsinghpur, the offending truck bearing registration No. OSC 3865 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from his back side and dashed against him, as a result of which his right foot was crushed under the wheels causing him seriously injured. He was removed to Jagatsinghpur Government Hospital and thereafter to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack for treatment, After his treatment, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal below for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
3. During the course of hearing, the owner-respondent No. 1 was set ex parte and respondent No. 2-Insurance Company only contested the case.
After considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal allowed the case and directed the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the appellant-petitioner. The appellant challenges the order on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as it is evident from the evidence on record the appellant had to undergo prolonged treatment including surgical operation for injuries sustained by him which has rendered him permanently disable and, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have allowed the claim in toto. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 defends the award to be just.
5. The claimant has adduced unimpeachable medical evidence in the nature of discharge certificate, bed head ticket, injury report and x-ray plate which conclusively indicate that the appellant was under treatment in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital from 10.1.1990 to 1.3.1990. There was surgical operation and skin grafting in course of his treatment. Ext. 2 reveals that the appellant had to seek medical help for a considerable period even after his discharge from hospital. Evidence of P.W. 1-the appellant and the contents of Ext. 1 reveal that the appellant used to work as an auto-electrician. Therefore, it is obvious that apart from having been subjected to pain and suffering as well as medical expenses, the appellant was also deprived of his earning for a considerable period. In such circumstances, the award amount of Rs. 40,000/- appears to be inadequate. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (sixty thousand) is the just compensation to be payable. The award is modified accordingly.
With the above modification of the impugned award, the appeal is allowed in part.