ROHIMA BIBI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has also considered the relevant materials on record. The claimant-appellant's case is that she was travelling in a bus on 12.04.1998 when owing to rash driving on the part of the driver of the bus, the bus turned turtle and, as a result, the claimant-appellant suffered injury. It is her case that she was 35 years of age at the time of the accident and her monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. The claimant-appellant claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- initially which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The claim application was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal by the judgment/award dated 29 August, 2005 awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant-appellant as the claimant-appellant had to suffer mental and physical pain and agony. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimant-appellant that her right hand from the elbow had to be amputed. The learned Tribunal found that no medical document nor any doctor has stated anything about the alleged amputation of the right hand and the certificate being Exhibit-3 also does not reflect that there was traumatic disarticulation of the right elbow joint. The learned Tribunal further found from the evidence of P.W. 2, who happens to be the doctor, and had attended the claimant-appellant, that the claimant-appellant had been absconding from the hospital since 30.04.1998. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the said P.W. 2 did not state anything that there was any amputation of the right hand of the claimant-appellant.

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant submits before this Court that the matter should be sent back on remand to the learned Court below to enable the claimant-appellant to adduce further evidence to show that there was an amputation of her right hand. This proposition has been objected to by the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. It appears to this Court that the claimant-appellant had sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence when the matter was pending before the learned Court. In fact, the doctor, being the general surgeon, who had attended the claimant-appellant at the district hospital concerned, did not give evidence anywhere about the amputation. It also appears that there is no medical record in evidence to show that there was any amputation.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the claimant-appellant relies upon Exhibit-3 and submits that the said document shows that the claimant-appellant suffered 50% disability and the said certificate also shows that the claimant-appellant suffered traumatic disarticulation of elbow of the right hand. It, however, does not appear from the said Exhibit-3 that there was any amputation. It also does not appear that such disability is permanent in nature.