Victim cannot be asked to examine all doctors who treated him.

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award and decree dated 22.1.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court), Cuddalore.)

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award and decree dated 22.1.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.23 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court), Cuddalore.

2. In the claim petition, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that happened on 12.6.1994 at 9.00 hours at Cuddalore, on account of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent-Transport Corporation. The appellant-claimant was driving a motor-cycle and at that time, he was hit by the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation.

3. The Transport Corporation resisted the claim on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The Transport Corporation examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the Transport Corporation.

5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, concluded that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.5,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses) as compensation with 12% interest. Not satisfied with this award, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

6. This is an appeal by the claimant. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the Transport Corporation. Such an issue is not disputed by the Transport Corporation now.

7. The Tribunal however did not grant the medical expenses in full as claimed through Ex.A-8 series of bills, on the ground that the same have not been proved by examining a Doctor. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the medical bills submitted are relatable to the various treatments given to him consequent to the accident, at different hospitals by different Doctors. Therefore, it was not possible for the claimant to examine all or any one of the Doctors. If the claimant examines one Doctor, the other Bills will be rejected on the ground that the concerned Doctor has not been examined. In such a situation, only the Bills were produced. The bona-fides of the medical bills are not questioned. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1986 Rajasthan 37 (M/s.Pokarmal Ram Narayan vs. Ram Saran), which reads as follows:

"6. In my considered opinion, there cannot be any general rule of thumb unless medical expert is produced even unrebutted evidence of the injured cannot be accepted."

8. On the merits of the claim, on going through the medical bills and records, it is seen that Ex.A-1 dated 12.6.1994 is the accident register copy of District Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, Ex.A-2 is the discharge summary and medical advice dated 11.7.1994 issued by Miot Hospitals Limited, Chennai, Ex.A-3 dated 12.9.1994 is the discharge summary issued by Eastcoast Hospitals Ltd., Pondicherry, Ex.A-4 dated 18.8.1994 is discharge summary issued by JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, Ex.A-5 is the out-patient record issued by the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, Ex.A-6 is the O.P. receipt issued by Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government Hospital, Pondicherry, Ex.A-7 series are the prescription and treatment particulars issued by Eastcoast Hospitals, Pond