A disability certificate issued by a Medical Board without the assessment of a Neuro Surgeon, who would be the best specialist to assess the extent of disability, lacks credibility and cannot be relied upon to determine the compensation for non-pecuniary damages in a motor vehicle accident case.

JUDGMENT

Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Asansol in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 49 of 2006 whereby, Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimant.

2. This claim case arose out of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of injury sustained by claimant, Md. Murshid, a boy of fifteen (15) years.

3. On 17.06.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. one Pick Up Van bearing no. WB-37A/9401 running with high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed Md. Murshid near Damagoria while he was walking through National Highway-2. As a result, said boy sustained injury and lost his working ability forever being physically disabled to the extent of 45% according to Medical Board.

4. That is why, mother of injured Md. Murshid filed the claim petition with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,55,000/-.

5. Though, owner of the vehicle did not contest the case but National Insurance Company entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written statement denying all averments of the claim petition contending, inter alia, that the alleged pick up van was not insured with the Insurance Company and the said pick up van was not also involved in the accident. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. To prove the case, Sahin Banu, claimant of the case examined herself as PW-1 and she corroborated the factum of accident for which Kulti PS Case no. 134/06 dated 20.06.2006 under Section 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code was started and ended with charge sheet against the driver of the said pick up van. She further stated the age of her son and to incur the expenditure for treatment she had to spend more than Rs. 50,000/-. In course of her evidence, certified copy of FIR, charge sheet, seizure list, disability certificate, copy of Policy, R/C Book, Tax token etc. were admitted in evidence as exhibit 1 to 10.

7. One Mr. Md. Ali Iman, has been examined as PW-2, who claimant himself as eye-witness, has testified that on 17.06.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. the injured Md. Murshid was crossing the road and suddenly one Max Pick Up Van bearing reg. no. WB 37A/9401 coming from the side of Asansol with high speed dashed Md. Murshid. In effect, he sustained injury all over his body. He was taken to nearby nursing home and thereafter to Bokaro General Hospital. In cross-examination PW-2 testified that the injured was walking through Zebra crossing on foot and PW-2 himself witnessed the accident with his own eyes. He took the injured to hospital.

8. One Nurul Amin, claiming himself a teacher of Ranitala Maqtar Free Primary School, deposed to prove the date of birth of the injured Md. Murshid after verifying the school register. Certificate issued by the PW-3 was admitted as exhibit-9. From the cross-examination, it appears he could not say whether the injured was then studying in that school or not but he was their student. From his cross-exanimation it is further seen that PW-3 could not say when Md. Murshid left the school.

9. Dr. Shyamal Sanyal, has been examined as PW-4, who claimed himself as Medical Officer attached to blood bank of S.D. Hospital, Asansol. He stated that, he being superintended of the hospital was a member of the Medical Board. They examined Md. Murshid and issued handicapped certificate (exhibit-10). In cross-examination, he stated that, Neuro Surgeon was the best specialist in this regard. They examined the patient, but did not use any instrument. They issued certificate in compliance with the standard guidelines of the Government.

10. Ld. Tribunal ignored the disability certificate on the fact that injured being a student did not suffer any loss of income and in view of the structural formula for assessment of compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ld. Tribunal relied on the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex