A government-issued disability certificate is adequate proof of disability, and courts should adopt a liberal approach in awarding compensation for pain and suffering.

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur in claim case No.136/2012, whereby award of Rs. 17,72,138/- has been passed along-with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal while considering the permanent disability of 75% of the injured-respondent, did not proceed in a right manner as no Doctor was examined to prove that the claimant had suffered disablement of 75%.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disablement shown in the Permanent Disability Certificate also did not indicate that the claimant had lost earning capacity by 75%.

4. Learned counsel submitted that assessment of compensation by taking functional disability by 75% in absence of evidence of the treating Doctor is not justified.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life. The award of Rs.5,00,000/- is an exorbitant amount, which is not justified and if at all sum was to be awarded, the claim against these heads, amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- would have been justified, considering the entire facts.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the injury case, the claimant has to prove before the Tribunal that his earning is substantially affected due to injury suffered by him and if no such evidence is led, only by having disability, the claimant cannot claim that future earning of such person has been affected.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the claimant has been awarded Rs.135/- per day as daily wager and once the claimant has been treated as a daily wager, there was no question of his loss of income towards future prospects.

8. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

9. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the award. The Tribunal has taken into account that the injured had suffered 75% disability and disability certificate has been issued by a Government Hospital - SMS Medical Hospital, Jaipur, where injured is said to have suffered severe Ataxia and Dysarthria.

10. This Court finds that the injury, which is suffered by the injured, is of permanent in nature and the claimant on account of such injury, will not be able to function with his normal activities.

11. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.735/2020) decided vide order dated 05.02.2020 has considered the issue of granting damages under the head of pain, suffering and loss of amenities in life.

12. The Apex Court has laid down the test that the person, who suffers physical disability and also suffers mental disability, then various factors are to be taken into consideration.

13. The Apex Court has further found that the injured comes to Court to claim award of compensation only at one point of time and he cannot come back to the Court for enhancement of award at a later stage, praying that something extra has been spent.

14. The Apex Court has laid down that the liberal view in these matters are required to be taken by the Courts, where there is involvement of not only physical disability but mental disability as well.

15. This Court finds that the award of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimant under the head of pain, suffering and loss of amenities, cannot be said to be on higher side or excessive.

16. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that since no Doctor was examined to prove the disability of 75% and as such the claim of the claimant was liable to be rejected, suffice it to say by this Court that if the disability certificate was produced of a Government Hospital, there was no reason to disbelieve the same.

17. This Court further finds that apart from disabilit