PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and order passed on 21st June, 2004 by the learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 11th Court, Alipore, District South 24- parganas M. A. C. Case No. 252 of 2003. The main grievance of the appellant herein who got leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the matter on all the points as available to the owner of the offending vehicle, is on the issue of wrong fixation of the compensation amount holding 25% physical disability is directly proportionate to identify the 25% loss of the income and also on the point of wrong application of multiplier under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 3 ) THE factual scenario of the matter in short is to this effect,

( 4 ) THE claimant suffered injury due to the motor accident. Before accident the claimant was working in the post of Sergeant of the Traffic department in the Calcutta Police. The claimant immediately got treatment in the outdoor department of S. S. K. M. Hospital, Calcutta wherein the expert doctors opined that he would be able to resume normal work after one week as it appears from the endorsement dated 14th April, 2003 in the outdoor ticket as issued by the Hospital authority. On 21st April, 2003 there was a further endorsement in the outdoor ticket which was exhibited before the learned tribunal that the gentleman could resume normal duty. In the claim application it is the case of the claimant while claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- that the accident as happened on 15th March, 2003 has made him handicaps as he could not walk as normal human being and he had suffered strength in the left leg etc. In the deposition the claimant deposed that at the time of accident his monthly income was Rs. 9,000/- due to his service in the rank of Inspector in Calcutta Police and that due to the injury of left leg he had suffered permanent partial disability which practically had debarred him to lead a normal life. However, in the Cross-examination the gentleman deposed that even after the accident, upon submitting a fit certificate issued by the appropriate authority, he joined in the duty of Sergeant and he was still working. One Dr. P. K. Mondal came to depose in favour of the claimant. It is his version that after long year of the accident he clinically examined the gentleman and found that though there was no bony injury in the left ankle, but the X-ray report of 9th April, 2003 which was done immediately after the accident had shown fracture injury in the head of the fibula, hence he opined that there was 25% permanent partial disability as the claimant patient had complained painful stiffness in left knee joint, pain on walking, squatting, inability to run, pain on cimbing stairs and unable to drive motor bike. Though the claimant in his deposition categorically deposed that after he became physically fit, he joined the service and was working as Police Surgent as usual with usual salary, allowance and benefits, but from the Medical certificate which was exhibited, issued by a private Doctor on 25th April, 2004 the claimant complained that he was unable to drive the motor bike and that he was suffering from stiffness of left knee joint, pain on walkling, squatting, inability to run, pain on climbing stairs etc. The deposition of both the two witnesses, namely, the claimant himself and his Doctor are self contrary as it appears by mere scanning of the evidence on record which the learned Tribunal below did not notice. The Medical officer who deposed in support of the claimant's case in the Cross-examination categorically deposed "i have found the patient as fit at present. I have found percentage of disability assessed by me is high and excessive. " Despite the evidence on record to that effect which practically made the case of the claimant, so far his suffering

Click Here to Read the rest of this document