The appellant must prove nexus between accidental injuries and permanent disability through cogent evidence to claim compensation for permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

1. The appellant-original claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 4/3/2006 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 2/1999. Respondent no. 1 is the owner of luxury bus bearing registration no. MH-18/C-7699, respondent no. 2 is the insurer of the luxury bus and respondent no. 3 is the insurer of Truck bearing no. MH-04/H/1938.

2. The appellant suffered multiple injuries in an accident that occurred on 15/11/1997. The bus and truck had head-on collision. The drivers of both the vehicles died on the spot. The owner of the Truck has also expired. Hence, owner and driver of Truck have been not made party. An offence came to be registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide Crime No. 68/1997. The appellant has blamed both the vehicles for rash and negligent driving and held them responsible for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

3. According to the appellant, he was 29 years old and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. He is involved in the business of running Funfair as well as Mini Bazar at various places throughout the State of Maharashtra. He was travelling in the luxury bus while returning from Mumbai, when the accident occurred. He was admitted at NM Hospital, Nashik for a period from 5/11/1997 to 14/1/1998. He claimed to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%. He claimed expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,09,735/- towards medicine and treatment at NM Hospital. He also claimed compensation under other heads, viz., mental shock, loss of income, diet money, etc. total amounting to Rs. 10,20,350/-. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 contested the petition.

4. The Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred because of negligence of both the vehicles. The Tribunal, however, has held that the appellant failed to prove that he has incurred permanent disability in the said accident. On the point of entitlement, the Tribunal held the appellant to be entitled for Rs. 1,10,000/- towards medical bills, which was directed to be paid by respondent nos. 2 and 3.

5. Having heard both the sides and having gone through the record, the following points arise for my consideration:

S. No. Points Finding

1 Whether the petitioner has proved nexus between the accidental injuries and the handicapped certificate? In Negative

2 Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the amount of compensation? If yes, to what amount the appellant is entitled for. Yes, appellant is entitled for Rs. 2,22,199/-

3 Whether interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award? In Affirmative

4 What order? As per final order

REASONS

As to Point No. 1

6. The issue revolves around the handicapped certificate (Exh.41). I have gone through the said certificate. It is titled as ‘Permanent Handicapped Certificate’. It has been issued on 28/6/2001, i.e. after about 3 years and 8 months of the accident. The certificate indicates that the appellant was examined on 26/6/2001. He was found to be in the category of physically handicapped persons in terms of the definition laid down by the Maharashtra Government under Government Resolution dated 23/5/1978. The certificate has been issued to enable him to register his name as physically handicap person in the employment exchange for employment assistance. The nature of disability is arthritis right hip with shortening IIrt trauma. The permanent disability of the deformity is mentioned as 40%.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the certificate has been issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Amravati. It has been signed by the Member, Handicap Board and Orthopedic Surgeon, who is also the President of the Handicap Board. According to him, this certificate having been issued by the Medical Board, examination of doctor was not necessary. The Tribunal has committed an error in not relying upon this certificate.

8. As against, Shri Paunikar, learned Cou