AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1. Heard Mr. A.R.Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. L.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21/04/2014 passed by MACT, Goalpara in MAC Case No. 227/2010.
3. The claimant Musstt. Balijan Bewa sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 03/11/2009, involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-
18/C-0364. The vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 1 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at the relevant time. The claimant filed an application before
the MACT, Goalpara praying for compensation and the learned tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded an amount of Rs. 41,017/- as
compensation, which consisted of Rs. 21,600/- towards loss of income for six months, Rs. 4,417/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards
pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Unsatisfied with the quantum of award, the claimant preferred the instant appeal.
5. The sole question raised in this appeal is that the claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50%, in support of which, a disability
certificate was proved by the claimant. However, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the disability certificate and granted a very
meagre amount as compensation. Therefore, learned counsel urged for enhancement of compensation by awarding a fair amount towards loss of
earning due to disablement.
6. Learned counsel, Ms. L. Sharma for the Insurance Co. submits that the doctor was not examined to prove the disability certificate and therefore,
the learned tribunal rightly rejected the disability certificate and granted a fair and reasonable compensation. Evidently the disability certificate
produced by the claimant was marked as Ext. 14. However, the doctor was not examined to prove the disability.
7. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the certificate was issued by the Medical Board constituted for the purpose and
the same ought to have been accepted without examining the doctor by the claimant. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar-VS- Ajay Kumar & Ors.
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 observed, that where a disability certificate is issued by the duly constituted Medical Board, the same should be
accepted subject to evidence adduced regarding genuineness of such certificate. Therefore, even if a certificate is issued by a Board, it cannot be
accepted, unless its genuineness is proved by adducing some evidence. With regard to proof of genuineness of the certificate Ext 14, no evidence was
adduced by the claimant, and as such, in my considered view, the learned tribunal rightly rejected the same, inasmuch as, the physical disability cannot
be assessed by the court and the same can be assessed by the medical expert. Genuineness of such certificate is required to be proved for the simple
reason, that using readily available and fake certificate is very common in claim cases.
8. Be that as it may, from the other evidence, oral as well as documentary it appears, that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of her legs
and she was a daily labourer. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the injury, it is not difficult to understand that the claimant would certainly
require considerable time for recovery from the said injury, and as such, the compensation towards loss of earning for the period of treatment, as
granted by the learned tribunal, appears to be on the lower side. In my considered view, having regard to the gravity of the injury, i.e., fracture of both
bones of the legs, of the claimant, at least one year’s income ought to have been given as loss of earning for the period of treatment. Since there is
no dispute with regard to the earning of the claimant being Rs. 3,600/-, she is entitled to an amount equal to the loss of earning for one year.
Accordingly, the compensation for loss of earning is enhanced to Rs. 43,200/- (one year’s income). The quantum of compensation awarded by the
learned tribunal on account of general damages for pain, shock and suffering also appears to be on the lower side and deserves some enhancement.
Thus, having regard to the gravity of the injury, the amount on account of general damages for pain, shock and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-
from Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the compensation granted by the learned tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 46,600/-.
9. The Insurance Co. shall pay the additional amount of Rs. 46,600/- to the claimant with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, in
addition to what was awarded by the learned tribunal. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the above enhanced amount of compensation by
depositing the same with the tribunal within six weeks from today.
10. Appeal is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly.
11. Send back the LCR.