(1.) INSURER /claimant is the appellant. He had suffered injuries in a motor accident that took place on 25/11/1995. He was aged 28 years on the date of the accident. He claims to be a marble worker earning an income of Rs. 125/ - per day. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of both bones of the right leg middle 1/3rd. That was a displaced grade one compound fracture. He was an in -patient from 25/11/1995 to 08/12/1995. His treatment continued. He allegedly had suffered permanent disability. The extent of permanent disability was assessed by PW2 doctor in Ext.A5 disability certificate to be 12%. The claimant examined himself as also PW2 doctor and PW3, his employer in support of his case.
(2.) THE tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs. 45,000/ - along with interest @ 6% p.a as per the details shown below:
(3.) WE find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The nature of the injury is seen by us first of all. In addition to other external injuries, the appellant had suffered fracture of both bones of the right leg middle 1/3rd. It was a displaced fracture and was reckoned as a grade one compound fracture by the doctor. He is a marble worker, a manual labourer. Physical faculties are crucial in the employment which he pursues. Ext.A5 disability certificate was perused by us in total. Our attention has also been drawn to the evidence of PW2, the doctor who issued Ext.A5. 12% disability has been certified in Ext.A5. The oral evidence of PW2 suggests the advisability of reducing the percentage of disability by three if the disability of future improvement is taken into consideration. But, according to PW2, it is after reducing such extent of 3%, that Ext.A5 certifies the disability to be 12%. That fact is not stated in Ext.A5 and was stated only when confronted during cross -examination of the possibility of improvement by physiotherapy.