A medical certificate issued by a qualified doctor, which indicates that the victim of a motor vehicle accident has become permanently disabled, is sufficient to entitle the claimant for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if the certificate is issued after some time.

S.P. Talukdar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001 passed by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal, Hooghly in M.A.C. Case No. 34/99.

2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:-

3. The present appellant, Smt. Urmila Roy, filed an application before the learned M.A. C. Tribunal, Chinsurah, Hooghly praying for statutory compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. She 'alleged 'that on 19th February, 1996 at about 6.30 a.m. while travelling in a Bus being No. WB-15/2612 which was proceeding towards Puri from Uttarpara, she sustained severe injuries as the said vehicle suddenly overturned by the side of the road i.e., National Highway No. 5 five persons died as a result of the said accident and many passengers including the petitioner sustained serious injuries. She was transferred to Jujpur District Hospital and from there to Bttarpara General Hospital from where she was discharged on 24th February, 1996. She is still under treatment and has practically become a disabled person. Over this, Barchona P.S. Case No. 34 of 1996 dated 19th February, 1996 under section 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code was started. The claimant categorically asserted that such accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the-said vehicle.

4. As against this, O.P. No. 1 before learned Tribunal, 'Lakhpati Devi' filed a written statement wherein all the material allegations made by the applicant were denied.

5. The New Indian Assurance Co. 'Ltd.; as 'O.P. No.2, contested the said case by filing a written statement. It however, admitted that the said vehicle being No. W.B. – 15/2612 was under valid insurance coverage at the relevant time. Age and income of the claimant had not been admitted and it was stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving. It had been further denied that the claimant became permanently disabled as a result of the injuries sustained by her due to the accident.

6. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances dismissed the claim application.

7. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 24th January, 2001, the claimant preferred the instant appeal.

8. Learned Counsel for appellant Mr. Krishanu Banik, at the very outset submitted that learned Tribunal was not justified in not placing reliance upon Ext.6 the Medical Certificate which indicated that the claimant had become permanently disabled.

9. Before proceeding further it is perhaps necessary to refer to the materials on record. Of the two witnesses examined before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the claimant, PW-1 deposed in details in support of the averments made in the claim application. Such oral evidence derived effective support and strength from the evidence of the doctor, who certified that the victim suffered disablement to the extent of 38% as well as from the documents which included copy of the FIR, seizure list, injury certificate, copy of the insurance policy and the discharge certificate.

10. Certificate issued by PW-2, marked Ext.6 seems to be the centre of controversy. It did not seem to have inspire confidence of the learned Tribunal.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Banik, referring to the decisions in the case of Ashoke Vs. Ashok Singh, reported in 1996 ACJ page 392, submitted that certificate from a medical practitioner certifying permanent disability is sufficient to entitle the claimant for interim award under no fault liability. Reference was also made to the decisions in the cases of Santosh Kumar Vs. Sanjay More, reported in AIR 1999 MP 62, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., reported in (1999) 9 SCC 57 and Geetabai Vs. Satnanrayan, reported in II(2000) ACC 58. In support of his contention that disability certificate, even if issued after sometime cannot be brushed aside, he referred to the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd