Union Of India vs Rantu Saikia

Heard Mr. SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tezpur in MAC Case

No. 306 of 2009.

The claimant Rintu Saikia sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 19.10.2008, involving vehicle bearing registration No. 05 B-089797k

(Gypsy) owned by the appellant. It is also stated that due to the said incident, claimant sustained permanent disablement. On application made by the

claimant, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant Union of India preferred the instant appeal.

The sole point raised in this appeal is that learned Tribunal ought not to have accepted the disability certificate. The contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant is that the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate was not examined to prove the disability and as such in absence of

proof of disability by examining the Doctor, learned Tribunal ought not to have granted compensation for 40% loss of earning, mechanically, without

ascertaining the extent of disability.

Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for the claimant submits that disability certificate was issued by the District Disability Rehabilitation

Center and the genuineness of the certificate was never disputed. The learned Tribunal, having accepted the disability certificate, issued by a Statutory

Authority on the basis of the recommendation of the Board of doctors, the genuineness of the certificate cannot be questioned in appeal . From the

Exhibit-4 it appears that the injured Rantu Saikia had 40 % disability for the injury. There is no mention in the certificate as to the nature of injury or

whether such disability relates to a limb or the whole body. However, learned Tribunal while considering the question of disability, took into account

the other medical documents proved by the claimant, which demonstrated that the claimant sustained fracture of shaft femur, complex knee injury,

‘posterior dislocation’ and distal radius fracture left. Having taken into account all those injuries sustained by the claimants, learned Tribunal

even in absence of examination of the Doctor accepted the disability certificate. The impugned Judgment and award also transpires that the learned

Tribunal while assessing the loss of earning capacity, took into account the occupation of the claimant that the claimant was a worker in the

establishment Shankar Industrial Works. Apparently, the medical documents transpire that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and had to take

treatment for long time .

The documentary evidences demonstrating the injuries of the claimant were not disputed by the respondent. No doubt, in order to prove the disability,

the disability certificate can be issued by the Doctor who treated the person concerned or who examined or assessed the disability. In the instant case,

the disability certificate Exhibit-4 was issued by the District Disability Rehabilitation Center, which is a statutory body under the Ministry of Social

Justice and Empowerment of Government of India and the certificate is also appears to have been signed by three doctors who comprised the

members of the Medical Board. The Apex Court in Rajkumar â€"vs- Ajay Kumar & anr reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 observed that when the

disability certificate is given by a duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding genuineness of such

certificate. Even though, the Doctor, who assessed the disability was not examined, the injuries having sustained by the claimant, as indicated above

not being disputed, in my considered view, there was no compelling circumstances to reject Exhibit-4, more particularly, when it was issued by a

Statutory authority on the basis of recommendation of the Board of Doctors. The Tribunal having accepted the disability certificate as genuine, I do

not find any reason to discard the same. The next question arises is what was the extent of loss of earning or functional disability, resulting from the

physical disability, in as much the physical disability and loss of earning or impact of the physical disability on the earning capacity are not always

same. The impact of physical disability on the income or loss of income, because of the physical disability varies depending upon various factors,

including the nature of the injury, occupation etc.

Learned Tribunal in the instant case having taken note of the gravity of the injury sustained by the claimant and the physical disability to the extent

of 40% as well as the nature of the occupation of the claimant, assessed the loss of earning as 40% as a result of the disability. Considering the

materials brought on record, I do not find any infirmity and illegality having been committed by the learned Tribunal in determining just compensation in

the present case assuming 40% functional disability.

In the teeth of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed and stands disposed of. Send down the

LCR.