ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 18-3-1982, the claimant-appellant, Anil Kumar and one Subhash Chander were together coming on a two-wheeler Scooter from village and were going to their house in Sector-35, Chandigarh, when the scooter was hit by a Punjab Roadways Bus No PUN- (sic) driven by Pavitar Singh, Driver, as a result of which both Anil Kumar and Subhash Chander sustained injuries. They filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandigarh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after recording a finding that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Sh. Pavitar Singh, driver of the Punjab Roadways Bus, awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to the claimants appellants. Dissatisfied with the Award of the Tribunal which is dated 4- 4-1984, Anil Kumar, the claimant, filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE claimant at the time of accident was about 28 years of age and was working as a Cloth Merchant and in the claim application it is stated that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. Dr S. S. Sandhu, who had appeared as Pw, 3 stated before the Tribunal that Anil Kumar, claimant had sustained a compound fracture of the right ankle and closed fracture of the lateral condyle right femur alongwith legamental instability and further that he had suffered 65% physical impairment and loss of physical functioning to the lower extremities The learned Tribunal while discussing the evidence of Doctor Sandhu had observed that it would be in-appropriate to depend on his testimony as regards the physical impairment caused to the claimant having regard to the fact that he was merely a Junior Resident of Orthoepaedics Department and was thus, in the nature of a house surgeon and not even a Registrar of the said Department. Further, it was observed that significantly, no senior Doctor viz. Assistant Professor or Professor of the Orthoepaedics Department of the P. G. I. , Chandigarh had been produced to prove the extent of physical impairment in respect of the claimant. The learned Tribunal then observed :

(3.) AFTER going through the record of the case and going through the Award. I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was not correct in discarding the evidence of Dr. Sandhu on the ground that he was merely a Junior Resident of the Department. A Junior Resident can also opine in the matter. It is not suggested that he did not give his opinion which was not based on the record. Merely because Senior doctor was not produced, would not mean that the statement of Dr. Sandhu on the question of disability cannot be relied upon. If this statement was to be challenged, the respondents could very well summon Doctor of a higher status from the same department to say that the opinion of Dr. Sandhu was not correct.