The assessment of compensation for personal injury cases involves specific medical evidence and consideration of various factors such as loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, pain, suffering, and trauma.

JUDGMENT :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 16.06.2003 passed learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara in M.A.C. Case No. 488/96, wherein and whereby, the claim filed by the appellant herein for compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the motor vehicle accident was dismissed.

2. The present appeal is at the instance of the claimant. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellantinjured is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 and the medical evidence under Exhibits-5 and 6, which clearly demonstrates that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident occurred with the bus owned by the respondent on 25.09.1996. It is also his contention that the tribunal wrongly held that the injuries sustained by the appellant was not relatable to any accident occurred with the motor vehicle owned by the respondent without considering the police records under Exhibits-1 and 2, which clearly demonstrate that the vehicle owned by the respondent was responsible for the accident, in which the appellant had sustained injuries. Lastly, he contended that even the driver of the bus, who was examined as NAW-1, has clearly admitted that he was chargesheeted for the accident relating to the injuries suffered by the appellant. All the above evidence clearly demonstrates that there was an accident and in the said accident the appellant sustained injuries.

3. The counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions raised by the appellant counsel. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of NAW-1 and NAW-2 and non-examination of doctor relating to Exhibit-6. According to him, the driver and the conductor of the bus who are the rightful eyewitness to the incident clearly deposed that there was no accident as claimed by the appellant and according to him, the injury certificate was belated and concocted one and the tribunal after appreciating the above evidence rightly dismissed the claim, which requires no interference.

4. In the light of the above submissions, the following substantial questions arises for consideration:

“(1) Whether the injuries suffered by the appellant is relatable to the accident occurred on 25.09.1996 with the vehicle owned by the respondents?

(2) Whether the appellant is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by her?”

5. The finding of the tribunal clearly show that there was an accident with the vehicle owned by the respondent on 25.09.1996. The evidence under Exhibits-1 and 2, the police records, clearly demonstrate that there was an accident with the vehicle owned by the respondent. The tribunal was not right in holding that the appellant failed to prove the injuries sustained by her in the accident relating to the bus owned by the respondent on 25.09.1996. This finding is contrary to the evidence on record. The injured is the rightful witness and her husband was also with her when the accident occurred and he was examined as AW-2. The evidence of injured-eyewitnesses clearly shows that she was alighting from the bus and suddenly the door was bolted, whereby her saree was stuck in the door resulting she fell down and when the bus was moved, the wheels were ran over her right foot. As a result, she suffered the crush injuries. This part of evidence is unchallenged and even going by the cross-examination of AW-1 and AW-2, there is no suggestion from the counsel representing the respondent that the injuries sustained by her were not relatable to the accident occurred with the bus owned by the respondent on 25.09.1996. Further, Exhibit A-6 clearly shows that it is dated 02.10.1996 and the accident is of 25.09.1996 and there is no much gap in-between them. The injury certificate obtained by the police from the Government hospital, which is unmarked, was laid more emphasis even though such evidence was not brought on record.