SUKESH KUMAR MAHTO Vs. YUGAL KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant/appellant is directed against the judgment and award dated 3rd October,2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 106 of 2000 whereby the claim application filed by the claimant for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in Motor Vehicle Accident has bee dismissed.

(2.) THE claimant/appellant was traveling in a reserved bus from Ranchi to Lohardaga. It was alleged that the bus was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner which resulted in an accident causing severe injury to the person of the appellant. According to the claimant, at the time of accident his monthly income was Rs. 2000/ - in addition to Rs. 1500/ - from selling vegetables in the market. Because of the injury in his hand, he has been deprived of from doing any work by the said hand and there is 70% disablement. In support of his claim, the appellant filed certified copy of F.I.R., certified copy of charge -sheet, certified copy of judgment of criminal case against the driver of the vehicle and certified copy of injury report, permanent disablement certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Lohardaga. The claimant also examined himself as a witness. In addition to that P. W.2 was examined who supported the case of the claimant saying that in the said accident, right hand of the claimant has become disabled permanently. P.W.3 is another witness, who also sustained injury in the said accident. He also supported the case of the claimant. Inspite of these evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim case on the ground that the examination of the doctor who ascertained the injury was essential. For better appreciation, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 7 of the judgment is reproduced herein below: Evaluating the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence filed by the claimant. I find that claimant was traveling by the offending bus namely Niraj Bux on the date of occurrence alongwith a Barati from Ranchi to Lohardaga and the driver of the bus was running rashly and negligently, and for such negligent the driver namely Fakira Sao was convicted and injury report Ext -4 goes to show that claimant has sustained grievous injury on his right hand due to the accident and (Ext. 5) which is the permanent Disablement Certificate issued by the C.M.O. Lohardage goes to show that claimant has sustained 70% permanent disablement and such document has been formally marked. From the perusal of case record I find that on the prayer of the claimant Dusti summon was issued to the claimant for the production of the Doctor who had examined the claimant but he failed to produce the doctor for his evidence. And it is settled principle of law that to ascertain of the permanent injury and also for the nature and percentage of the permanent injury examination of the doctor is essential who has examined or treated the Claimant. On this point, I find that claimant has not been able to establish by the medical evidence to the fact that how much percent of permanent disablement he shad sustained and such injury has taken place due to the said accident. Having regard to the above facts I find and hold that claimant has not been able to establish that he has sustained permanent disablement due to the said accident and the percentage of his disablement; and thus the claimant has no valid cause of action for the suit and the suit as framed is not maintainable and thus there is no necessity to grant any compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, all the issues are being decided against the claimant.

(3.) FROM bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in holding an enquiry on the claim application, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any Rules that may be made in this behalf, follow summary procedure.