The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act may not survive after the claimant's death if there is no evidence of loss to the estate and the disability, if any, was personal to the claimant and ceased upon his death.

CM-7645-CII-2016

1. This is an application for permission to prove photocopies of X-ray report dated 2.4.2001 (Annexure A-1) and discharge card dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure A-2) in additional evidence by way of secondary evidence.

2. The application is allowed and the documents Annexures A-1 and A-2 are marked as Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2.

FAO-3824-2006

3. This appeal was filed by the injured-claimant. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs have been brought on record.

4. The claim petition was filed by Gulab Singh through his wife. It was claimed that he met with an accident on 22.11.2000. He was a member of a marriage party and was going from Rewari to village Neemli. The vehicle was driven by respondent No. 1. The driver lost control and the claimant fell out and sustained fracture of the skull. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was claimed that the injured was a Hawker and had a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- and he had become permanently disabled. The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of respondent No. 1.

5. With respect to the injuries, the claimant's wife stepped into the witness box and deposed that her husband sustained fracture of the skull and had lost his memory and had become mentally retarded. The copy of the MLR was introduced in evidence which was marked. The Tribunal noted that the MLR was a certified copy and injury No. 2 referred to defused swelling on the parieto occipital region on the right side and fresh bleeding on the right ear. No name was mentioned in the MLR. It referred to the disability certificate which was tendered in evidence. It did observe that no doctor had been examined to prove it. It noted that the disability was stated to be 83% on account of amputation of the right leg and I.Q. disability. In para 23, it noted that the amputation had taken prior to the accident and did not relate to this accident. Para 23 reads as under:-

“23. The disability certificate Ex. PW1/A has given the disability in cumulative manner, individual or distinct percentage in relation to amputation of leg and I.Q. disability have not been given nor it has so stated by PW-1. Statement of PW-3 and MLR Mark-A clearly shows that the leg of the injured claimant was already amputated prior to the accident. Therefore, percentage given in the disability certificate on account of amputation of leg cannot be related to present accident and cannot be used in favour of the claimant to assess the compensation on account of physical disability. As observed by me, there is no segregation of disability on account of I.Q. disability and no medical evidence has been adduced by the claimant to enable this court to assess the mental disability of the claimant. So, in these circumstances, the disability certificate cannot be used in favour of the claimant.”

6. With respect to the income, it was held that there was no evidence. His income was taken to be as that of a labourer and at Rs. 3,000/- per month but since there was no evidence regarding the period of stay in the hospital it was assumed that he would have taken 25-30 days to recover and a month's salary was awarded. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,000/- with interest.

7. The paper book of this appeal was burnt. The lower Court record is available. The appellants have also placed on record copy of the documents and the evidence.

8. The submission on behalf of the appellant was that the leg was amputated before the accident but there was mental disability and that is the reason why the claimant could not step into the witness box. The counsel had referred to the disability certificate and had urged that there is a reference to a letter issued by PGI which speaks about his mental ability. It was urged that no amount for the disability was allowed by the Tribunal as noted in para 23 of the award. It was urged that the appellant had died during the pendency of the appeal. C