B. C. JAIN Vs. RAJINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, then 60 years old, working as an orthopaedic surgeon in private medical practice suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident at 10 AM on 21.04.1996 near the junction of roads at Madhuban Chowk, outer Ring Road, Delhi. At the relevant point of time, he was driving two wheeler scooter DL -8S -D -5432, which was hit by Maruti van DL 5C 1848 ("the offending vehicle"). The injuries sustained by the appellant are stated to include broken ribs and fracture of upper left limb. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the MV Act") on 15.11.1996 claiming compensation in the sum of 10 lakhs impleading the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as the first and second respondent and the insurer as the third respondent. The petition was contested by the driver and the insurer through their respective written statements. It was enquired into and adjudicated upon by the motor accident claims tribunal ("the tribunal") through judgment dated 31.01.2004 whereby compensation in the sum of 36,000/ - with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation was awarded. Since the offending vehicle was found to be insured, the insurance company (the third respondent) was directed to pay the awarded amount. Feeling aggrieved with the compensation thus awarded, the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act has been preferred.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that in the course of considering the evidence adduced during inquiry, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had failed to prove any permanent disability. No compensation was ordered for loss of future earnings. No compensation was awarded for loss of income for the period the appellant had remained incapacitated to pursue his normal course of life or medical practice. The Tribunal found that the appellant had proved medical expenses to the tune of 23,799/ - which was rounded off to 24,000/ -. It assessed the loss on account of pain and agony at 7,000/ - and also found it just and proper to award 5,000/ - as compensation for future physiotherapy treatment. Thus, the total compensation awarded was calculated at 36,000/ -.

(3.) The appellant, through the appeal at hand, insists that he had suffered permanent disability. During the pendency of the appeal, he approached the medical board of Hindu Rao Hospital again in October, 2009 and secured a certificate (Ex.AW -1/A) affirming that he suffers from periarthritis in his left shoulder and his disability is permanent to the extent of 20% of the upper limb. This certificate is pressed in aid of the claim of permanent disability suffered as a result of injuries sustained in the accident which is the subject matter of the case, in addition to and continuation of the disability certificate (Ex.PW -1/1) dated 14.07.2001 which was produced in evidence through Dr. S C Jain (PW -1), again of Hindu Rao Hospital during the inquiry before the Tribunal.