BABULIYA ALIAS BABULAL Vs. MUKESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which is invoked is whether the appellant is entitled to get the interim award in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for convenience). Shri Mehta submitted that the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in question which was owned by respondent No. 2 which was insured with respondent No. 3. He further submitted that the injury has been substained by the appellant in the said accident and there is fracture to the leg of the appellant. Shri Mehta submitted that the Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the appellant for interim award pointing out that the certificate which has been filed by the appellant after one year is from a private doctor. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous because that is not vitally decisive at this stage.

(2.) Shri S.K. Jain submitted that the said certificate is take one and not from the doctor who medically treated the appellant. Shri Jain further submitted that the appellant was in the hospital only for two days and therefore, the injury sustained by him cannot be treated to be permanent disability. He pointed out that it has come in the order which is being challenged, that the injury sustained was simple one. He further pointed out that the x-ray report was not produced.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that a poor person cannot afford to be in the hospital for longer time, that does not by itself deprive him of the benefit of benovalent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In number of cases the injuries may be detected lateron and keeping in view the illiteracy prevalent in India in villages,it may not be possible for such victim to produce the medical certificate of the doctor who treated him initially at the stage when his application for interm relief is to be considered. The intention behind legislating this provision of the Act is to give a solace to victim who sustained injuries in the accident. It is for enabling him to disburse the expenses incurred on medical treatment. What is to be seen is that there is nexus between the vehicle involved, accident occurred and the injury sustained by the victim. If the injuries are serious and if there is fracture, while considering the prayer for interim relief made by such victim in view of provisions of Section 95 of the Act, the Court need not go to further details. Afterall the amount will be Rs. 12,500/- only; that amount may be adjusted at the time of final decision of the claim petition.