The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining compensation for permanent disability in motor accident cases.

V. B. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) PRESENT appeal has been filed against the award dated 20th October, 1995 passed by Sh. Charanjit Jawa, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant is that on 15th May, 1985 he was travelling in bus No. DEP-5543 from Sabji Mandi to Lawrence Road. When the bus reached at g. T. Karnal Road, near Police Station, Adarsh Nagar at about 10. 15 a. m. , a truck bearing No. PBH-885 driven rashly and negligently by its driver (respondent No. 1)struck against the bus with the result the appellant sustained injuries. Respondent No. 5 is the owner whereas respondent No. 6 is the insurer of this truck. Respondent No. 4 is the driver of the bus whereas respondents 2 and 7 are its owner and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the bus.

( 3 ) VIDE the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 45,000/- as compensation under the following heads:-

1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 05,000/- 2. Exp. incurred on treatment, good diet and conveyance 3. Loss of income Rs. 07,000/- 4. Loss of enjoyment of life Rs. 05,000/- 5. Loss of future prospectus Rs. 10,000/- 6. Other Misc. expenses Rs. 08,000/- Total Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 10,000/-

( 4 ) IT also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.

( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

( 6 ) NOTICE of this appeal was issued to all the respondents.

( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 5 were served by publication but they did not appear. Initially, respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 7 put in appearance through their counsel but later on their counsel did not appear. Name of respondent No. 6 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 3rd September, 1997 passed by this court.

( 8 ) ON 1st February, 2007, counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for respondent No. 4 appeared and the matter was adjourned for 5th February, 2007. On 5th February, 2007 only counsel for the appellant appeared and none appeared for the respondents. As such arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant have been heard.

( 9 ) THE main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that injured has suffered a permanent disability in this case and the disability certificate has been proved on record. In spite of this, the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation on account of permanent disability, as such the appellant is entitled in all a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards compensation.

( 10 ) IT is an admitted case that left hand thumb of the appellant was amputated. However, learned Tribunal did not award any compensation qua the amputation of thumb. In its judgment the Tribunal held that:-

"amputation of left hand thumb will not cause total impairment in the agricultural occupation of the injured. The claimant can still work as agriculturist and there should not be so much impairment in his occupation. "

( 11 ) THIS finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse and does not appeal even to common sense.

( 12 ) SECTION 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines as to what are permanent disablement. It reads as under:-

"permanent disablement.- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving:- (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member of joint; or (b)destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;or (c)permanent disfiguration of the head or face. "

( 13 ) SINCE, it is a case of amputation of left hand thumb, the appellant, in these circumstances, is entitled for compensation due to the loss of this vital part of the body.

( 14 ) APPELLANT has claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 1 lac. However, he has not mentioned the different heads un