NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the award dated 30.6.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, in claim petition No. 14-S/2 of 2005 is under challenge on the sole ground of being perverse. The petitioner admittedly insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-64-0400 seems to be aggrieved by the assessment of the compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below with the help of disability certificate Ex. PW-3/A issued by Dr. Dwarka Prasad, Psychologist Kothi No. 149, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh, a private practitioner, with whom the petitioner never remained under treatment and rather as per his own case after the accident, firstly he remained under treatment in Zonal Hospital, Solan and thereafter at PGI, Chandigarh.

(2.) Having gone through the record and submissions made on both sides, there is no dispute so as to the accident of the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. HP-64-0400 occurred on 23rd September, 2005, near Village Dhalli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. There is again no controversy so as to the fact that the claimant-1st respondent was working as cleaner with the offending vehicle/truck and paid wages at the rate of Rs. 1800/-. He received injuries including head injury in the accident and was brought to Zonal Hospital for treatment. The OPD Slip is Ex. PW-1/A. He was referred to PGI Chandigarh on 24.9.2005. The OPD Tickets Ex. PW-5/A to Ex. PW-5/H is the record pertaining to the treatment given to the claimant-1st respondent in PGI Chandigarh. He was discharged on 30.9.2005. The disability certificate from PGI Chandigarh or Zonal Hospital, Solan has not been produced in evidence for the reasons best know to the Claimant-1st respondent. However, the disability certificate Ex. PW-3/A issued by PW-3, Dr. Dwarka Prasad, a private practitioner, has been produced in evidence.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the petitioner has forcefully contended that in view of the claimant-1st respondent having remained under treatment in Zonal Hospital, Solan and PGI Chandigarh, the disability certificate issued by these hospitals alone could have been admissible in evidence and not the certificate Ex. PW-3/A, issued by a private practitioner, who never examined the claimant-1st respondent nor remained under his treatment.