The admissibility of injury and disability claims is contingent upon expert testimony; mere certificates cannot substantiate such claims without expert cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Original claimant, who instituted M.A.C.P. No. 208 of 2008 for injury claim, is now taking exception to the judgment and award passed by learned Member, MACT/District Judge-2, Parbhani dated 15.07.2015, by which learned tribunal was pleased to allow the petition awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- with 7.5% rate of interest.

Dissatisfied by the above order, and more particularly quantum, original claimant has come up in appeal.

2. In nutshell, appellant/original claimant set up accident claim petition contending that on 25.04.2008, she along with her relatives were travelling in Indica Car bearing no. MH 04 BW 9852. When the car was on Basmat Parbhani Road, Commander Jeep bearing No. MH 26 C 1119 coming from opposite direction gave dash to the Indica Car causing injuries to present appellant, and also her relatives Krishna, Sham and Subhash died in the said accident. It is averred that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.

Compensation was thereby sought from respondent no.1 owner of Indica Car, its insurer Oriental Insurance and driver of the Jeep i.e. Yunuskhan.

The learned Member, MACT passed the following order :

“1. The petition is allowed with proportionate costs.

2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- [Rupees One Lac Fifty Five Thousand only] (excluding NFL amount) to the petitioner, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 20.06.2008 till its realization.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the amount in the form of cheque or D.D. drawn in the name of the petitioner.

4. Award be drawn-up accordingly.”

3. Learned counsel would point out that appellant was incumbent of the car and was not responsible for the accident, however, learned Tribunal has recorded finding that, both vehicles are negligent for the accident and thereby fixed liability to the tune of 40% on the car and 60% on the jeep. He pointed out that, such finding ought not to have been recorded when driver of the commander jeep was solely responsible. His contention is that, here, there is no contributory negligence, rather, composite negligence. He also pointed out that moreover, petition has been dismissed against driver of the offending jeep. He also submitted that, quantum awarded by the tribunal is meager and not as prayed. According to him, in spite of disability certificate on record, the same has been discarded. For all above counts, he seeks indulgence by allowing the appeal.

4. In answer to above, learned counsel for the insurance company, who has also filed cross objection, justifies the contributory liability, but according to him, claimant failed to prove that there was injury to her. Therefore, claim was false and baseless and without any foundation regarding suffering injury, or in turn, suffering any disability as alleged. According to him, the tribunal has already held in para 18 that injury certificate is not proved, nor medical expert is examined. Therefore, he finds fault in consideration of 13% disability arrived at by the Tribunal and urges to allow the cross objection.

5. Re-appreciated the evidence. The fundamental ground raised by the appellant-claimant is that, there was no contributory negligence and rather, jeep driver was solely responsible.

Findings of learned trial court to this extent are recorded in para 13. Learned Tribunal has recorded above finding on the strength of spot panchanama and indisputably, such evidence is required to be gone into while holding responsibility for accident. Ther