The court emphasized the importance of considering medical evidence in determining compensation for permanent disabilities resulting from accidents.

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala on a claim petition had awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident on 6th of March 1984. Aggrieved against the said award, the claimant had filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. In the said accident, the claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 55% on account of amputation of his leg.

2. I have gone through the case file and considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant. The claimant in order to prove the injuries has produced AW-5, Dr. Kirpal Singh, Registrar Othopeadics Department, Medical College, Amritsar. He stated that on 6.3.1984 Bachan Singh was admitted in emergency Orthopeadic unit 2 Medical College, Amritsar, as a case of crush injury on right leg sustained in road accident. The bone had multiple fractures and the circulation was damaged. The patient was in a very serious condition as a result of blood loss. Dr. Kirpal Singh had advised the amputation in order to save the life of the patient. The case was referred to Medical College, Patiala, for further amputation.

3. On examination, AW-4 Dr. A. Sidhu, MS Registrar Orthopaedic, Medical College Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, has stated that the claimant who was admitted in an injured condition on 13.3.1984 was operated upon by him on 20.3.1984 and Guilleteinne amputation of right leg was done. The Second operation was done on 16.4.1984 in which regular amputation was done. According to Dr. Sidhu, the patient had become physically handicapped permanently to the extent of 55%.

4. From the testimony of these witnesses, it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the claimant had suffered a permanent disability of 55% due to amputation of his leg. For the loss of limb, the petitioner should have been awarded higher compensation. It is unfortunate that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the medical evidence. Had the Tribunal taken into consideration the injuries, the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would not have been awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the peculiar facts of this case and considering the nature of injuries, the appellant is awarded Rs. 50,000/- for the loss, pain, suffering and injuries with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual payment thereof. However, out of this compensation, the compensation as already awarded is to be adjusted.

5. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs.