MAHIPATSINH UDESINH RAJPUT Vs. BHARVAD KARANBHAI BHAYBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 19.02.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) and Joint District Judge, Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 249 of 1984 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 11,500/- ( Rs. 5000/- for pain, shock and suffering + Rs. 2000/- for mental pain + Rs. 1500/- for medicines + Rs. 1000/- for treatment + Rs. 500/- for attendance + Rs. 500/- for special diet).

(2.) ON 20.05.1984 at about 7.00 p.m. when the minor claimant was standing at the bus-stop near Atul Oil Industries on highway between Wadhwan and Surendranagar, a matador bearing Registration No. GRZ 1683 driven by Opponent No. 2- driver came from Surendrangar in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the claimant as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

(3.) HEARD learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. So far the contention with regard to brain injury to the claimant is concerned, Mr. Mehta Exh. 45 has deposed that he examined the claimant and it was noticed that the claimant was having structural damage to brain with psychosis. Illness is permanent and requires long term treatment and follow up to maintain the present condition and to avoid further damage to brain. The certificate is produced at Exh 46. The doctor was cross-examined and in cross-examination he admitted that he was not sure about the details as to age of injured. He has further said that there is no instrument for diagnosis of organic psychosis. He has examined the claimant on three occasions. He further stated that the patient of organic psychosis does not lose memory powers. Further, the symptoms of claimants which are narrated by the father is not supported by the documentary evidence. The claimant himself in his evidence at Exh. 36 does not say anything about the symptoms like he has reduced his memory power. Hence as there is no equipment to actually measure or assess such type of disability then it is really difficult to rely upon the evidence based on the response given by the claimant. There is nothing on record to show that what sort of questions were put by the doctor and what sort of answers were given by the claimant at the time of injury examination and observation. In certificate at Exh. 46 there is no mention about any such symptoms. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed.