Back
2001 Supreme(Gau) 45
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
H.K.Sema, B.Lamare, JJ.
National Insurance Company Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Chandreswar Thakur -Respondent
MAC Appeal No. 1 (K) of 2000
Decided On : 28-02-2001
I.A.Talukdar, B.N.Sharma
Headnote:
Doctor Examination - Motor Vehicles Act - The court set aside the judgment and award, remanding the case for the examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination of witnesses in establishing the veracity of their statements.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the claimant for permanent disability without examining the Doctor.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the judgment and award, remanding the case for the examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination of witnesses.
Issues: The main contention was the lack of examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant, denying the opportunity for cross-examination by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of examining the Doctor and allowing cross-examination to establish the veracity of the claimant's case.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and award were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for the examination of the Doctor. The insurance company was allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit.
Heard Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.10.99 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 84 of 1998 thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 2,39,800 (Rupees two lakhs thirty nine thousand eight hundred as compensation in favour of the claimant. This appeal has been preferred by die insurance company as they were allowed by the Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The whole contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the claimant suffered permanent disability without examining the Doctor. Since the claimant Sustained injury, it was incumbent on the part of the claimant to have examined the Doctor and establish its case as to what percentage of permanent disabilities was suffered by the claimant. It would clearly appear that besides submitting a certificate from the Doctor, no doctor who has treated the claimant have been examined by the claimant. Non-examination of the Doctor to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant deny the opportunity to the insurance company to cross examine the Doctor. In our jurisprudence witnesses put up by either of the parties is subject to cross examination so as to test veracity or the truth ness or correctness of the statement of the witnesses. In the instant case, no Doctor has been examined to establish the extent of disabilities suffered by the claimant and in that view the permanent disability has not been proved. Apart from that the Tribunal saddled the liability with the insurance company on the compensation assessed on the basis of permanent disability suffered by the claimant, without giving any opportunity of cross examining the Doctor.
3. In the result the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.99 passed by the Tribunal in MAC Case No. 84 of 1998 is hereby set aside The case is remanded to Tribunal to start the proceeding afresh from the stage examination of Doctor. Needless to say that the insurance company would be entitled to cross examine the Doctor.
With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is disposed of. The insurance company is allowed withdraw the statutory deposit. Registry is directed to transmit the case record immediately.
