RAMESH SINGH Vs. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20th January, 1999 passed by the third Additional Member Judge of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Claim Case No. 92/97.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant was travelling on Rajdoot motor-cycle on 10th April, 1997. When he reached at Pohari Road, he met with an accident with the Vehicle (Bus) No. M.P.-08A/6197 driven by the respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 is Insurance Company with whom the said vehicle is insured. The claimant fell down from the motor-cycle due to the accident and suffered injuries. The claimant has filed the claim petition for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the applicant-appellant-claimant. Being aggrieved by the said award this appeal is filed on the ground that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant has not sustained any permanent disability in the accident. In fact, as per the findings of the Tribunal claimant has suffered a fracture in metacarpus bone.

(3.) THE claimant (A.W. 1) in his statement has stated that his left hand is permanently disabled due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. He has examined Doctor A.K. Morya to support his contention. Dr. Morya is examined by the Court as A.W. 2. Dr. Morya in his statement has stated that on 10th April, 1997 he has examined the claimant. After examination he found that there was swelling in his left hand and there was no movement in his fingers. There were four other minor injuries on the body of the claimant. He has referred the claimant in X-ray. The report of the said Doctor is Ex. P-3. The claimant has also examined Dr. Govind Singh A.W. 3. The claimant was examined by Dr. Govind Singh on 11th April, 1997. The Doctor in his statement has deposed that the claimant had suffered fracture in third metacarpus bone. Ex. P-4 is the report given by Dr. Govind Singh. The said Doctor has issued certificate Ex. P-5 which suggests that there was permanent disability. In his cross-examination the Doctor has deposed that the disability certificate Ex. P-5 is on the basis of the report Ex. P-4. The Trial Court has interpreted this statement as that certificate Ex. P-5 was not given in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident and it relates to some other injuries. This interpretation of the Claims Tribunal is not well founded. The Tribunal has held that the certificate Ex. P-5 is issued in regard to some other injuries and, therefore, has not relied on it. After perusing the document Ex. P-5 it is clear that the said injury relates to the injury sustained by the claimant in the accident. There is nothing on record to suggest that the claimant has suffered injuries in any other accident and, therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in discarding the said certificate. As per the certificate Ex. P-5 the total disability caused to the claimant/appellant is 10%.