GANESH KUMAR Vs. MUNNA LAL GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the award dated 18.02.2008 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 19/2007, whereby Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation on account of permanent disability caused to the claimant and verified by the treating doctor on the hyper technical ground that the claimant had not produced any certificate in regard to permanent disability from the Medical Board and the witness doctor has though certified 20% permanent disability in Ex. P/10, whereby it was found that there was shortening of 3/4 th inch in the right leg on the ground that doctor had not produced any scientific methodology based on which percentage of disability was assessed and also on the ground that doctor had not noted length of both the legs to show the difference in their length has refused to grant any compensation on account of permanent disability.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Manoj Rathore Vs. Anil Raheja & ors. as reported in 2012 ACJ 1459, wherein the Supreme Court after adverting to the evidence on record produced by the appellant that he had suffered injury of right thigh and had become permanently disabled reducing his working capacity relying on the oral testimony of the doctor based on the comparative study of both of his legs had awarded a lump sum amount in favour of the claimant. In the present case also there is evidence to the effect that 20% disability was caused due to fracture in the bone of thigh and tebia febula on account of shortening and claimant was also suffering from muscle dystrophy. In the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal should have considered and should have granted compensation on account of permanent disability. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that a broken leg bone can lead to a limb length discrepancy if it heels in a shorten position. This is more likely to happen if the bone was broken into many pieces and has suggested that the Claims Tribunal was justified in not awarding any amount on account of permanent disability. It is further submitted that as per the standards prescribed, no permanent disability can be attributed for first half inch and thereafter for next 1/4 shortening only 5% disability can be accepted.

(3.) This contention of the Insurance Company regarding 5% disability is rejected on account of the ratio of the decision in the case of Manoj Rathore Vs. Anil Raheja & ors, therefore, 20% disability is to be accepted as the evidence of the doctor has remain unrebutted throughout.