A disability certificate issued by a qualified medical practitioner is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the court has the discretion to evaluate the opinion of the doctor in the background of any particular facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court whereby Ld. Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards pain and suffering and also Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses in favour of the claimant /appellant.

2. The claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arose out of injury sustained by Senjuti Roy in an accident alleged to have been occurred on 24.12.2001 at about 9.40 hours while drivers of the two vehicles bearing no. WBU-1567 (mini bus) and WBS-2743 (bus) were driving in rash and negligent manner through GR road coming from opposite direction and collided with each other. As a result, claimant Senjuti Roy sustained severe injuries and removed to hospital. Both the drivers of the vehicles were responsible for the accident. That is why, claimant filed the claim petition with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/-along with medical expenses and interest. Both the Insurance Companies namely New India Assurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the claim petition by filing their respective written objection denying all material averments of the claim petition contending, inter alia, that claimant is not entitled to any compensation.

3. To prove the case, claimant himself examined as PW-1, who corroborated the contents of the claim application. In cross-examination, claimant testified that at the relevant point of time he was sitting in the cabin of the mini bus. He denied all suggestions thrown at him in course of her cross-examination.

4. One Dr. A Chowdury was examined as PW-2. In his examination-in-chief he testified that on 22.03.2004 he examined claimant Senjuti Roy who had no sensation on lateral aspect of her right hand. Dr. issued a certificate of permanent disablement to the extent of 55% and that report was admitted in evidence as exhibit 10. In cross-examination doctor testified that he did not make any medical treatment or clinical treatment of the claimant Senjuti Roy prior to 22.03.2004. He further testified that he was not attached to either Howrah General Hospital or S.S.K.M Hospital during that period. He had no knowledge about any accident met by the claimant.

5. In course of evidence of witness a good number of documents were admitted in evidence as exhibit 1 to 10.

6. Ld. Judge after analyzing the evidence on record returned his finding that none of the doctors of the hospitals were claimant was treated, was not examined to substantiate the treatment of the claimant after the accident. Ld. Judge did not rely on the disability certificate of the doctor who, admittedly, never treated the claimant. However, considering the medical expenses and pain and suffering Ld. Judge awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-in all.

7. Mr. Asquie Mondal, Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Claimant has referred to the evidence on record particularly the evidence on the issue of disability. It is submitted by Mr. Mondal, referring to Employees Compensation Act, 1923, that percentage of disability can be assessed by the qualified medical practitioner. Therefore, according to Mr. Mondal, the disability certificate issued by Dr. A Chowdhury can’t be thrown out of Court also in view of the Provision of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Mondal has referred to discharge certificate issued by S.S.K.M hospital which proved the admission of the claimant in the hospital for 21 days. Accordingly, under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code claimant suffered a grievous hurt.

8. Mr. Mondal alternatively claimed for Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 164 of the Motor vehicles Act.

9. In support of his contention, Mr. Mondal relied on the following Cases:-

* Rammurti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in 2022 (4) PAC 738 (SC)

* Golla Rajana and other Vs. Divisional Manager and another reported in (2017)