The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for medical evidence to prove permanent disability and the reliance on the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act to determine the percentage of loss and quantum of compensation.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the division Bench on the following question on account of conflicting decisions between two Division Benches of this court: whether the fracture of bones in a motor accident can be called privation of any member or joint and whether fracture of a bone simpliciter (without there being any permanent impairment or any weakness of body on account of it), would amount to a permanent disability within the meaning of 'permanent disability' defined under section 142 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988?

( 2 ) SECTION 142 of the Act is reproduced below:"permanent disablement. For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face. "

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') is exclusively for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act for interim compensation for no fault liability under section 140 of the Act.

( 4 ) IN this case, claimant has suffered fracture in a motor accident and he claimed that he has suffered permanent disability.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the claimant submitted that in the case of Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. Hukum Chand, 1998 ACJ 523 (MP), it has been held by the Division Bench that under section 142 of the Act, injury resulting in fracture of bones simpliciter will not be a permanent disability and on prima facie satisfaction if simple fracture does not show any permanent disability as defined in section 142 claimant is not entitled to get compensation. In another Division bench judgment in case of Mool Chand v. S. S. Parihar, 1999 ACJ 820 (MP), femur and shaft were operated upon and steel plates with Richard screws and 13 other screws were fixed for the reunion of the fractured bones. Division Bench held that it cannot be said that if merely because the fracture has been reunited, claimant has not suffered permanent disability.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the insurance company submitted that the words 'privation of member' are confined to section 142 of the act, i. e. , for interim compensation, but while determining final compensation, court has to record its finding from the evidence on record. If the claimant has proved permanent disability in the evidence or the percentage of permanent partial disability, then the claimant is entitled for compensation on account of permanent or partial disability. The counsel for the insurance company submitted that the later judgment in the case of Mool Chand, 1999 ACJ 820 (MP), is the correct judgment, whereas earlier judgment in the case of Saurabh kumar Shukla, 1998 ACJ 523 (MP), is limited to section 142 of the Act.

( 7 ) THE counsel for the claimant contended that when the nature of disablement is proved by the medical report as well as by evidence of doctor, Claims Tribunal has no option but to accept the deposition of the medical expert regarding percentage of disability. The counsel for the insurance company submitted that any bald statement of the doctor about the percentage of loss of disability without performing scientific tests as to disability suffered by the injured is inadmissible in evidence. Until and unless the nature of injury is proved and the disability is determined after performing scientific tests, oral evidence of the expert is not reliable.

( 8 ) THE counsel for the claimant further submitted that for the purposes of section 163-A of the Act, Schedule for compensation has been prepared. Para 5 of the schedule relates to disability in non-fatal accidents. He submitted that on perusal of para 5, it is clear that in case of inj