The court can enhance awarded amounts and award interest based on the evidence on record. Evidence from qualified doctors and medical reports is admissible to ascertain injuries and disabilities.

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Heard on 1.A. No. 1701/2005 which is an application for dispensing with services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The application is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

2. Being aggrieved by the award dated 12.3.2004 passed in claim Case No. 119/ 2000, the present appeal has been filed. Similarly, against the same award passed in Claim Case No. 110/2004, M.A. No. 1974/2004 has been filed.

3. In M.A. No.1973/2004, the injured is Ajay Kumar while in M.A. No. 1974/ 2004, the injured is Smt. Nirmala Bai. In M.A. No. 1973/2004 the award is for a sum of Rs. 11,000 and in M.A. No. 1974/2004 award is for a sum of Rs. 40,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum.

4. The break-up of the awarded amount in both are as under:

In M.A. No. 1973/2004

Rs. 1,000 -- towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000 -- towards mental pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000 -- towards physical pain and sufferings

In M.A. No. 1974/2004

Rs. 20,000 -- towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000 -- towards physical pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000 -- towards mental pain and sufferings

5. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that in the matter of Ajay Kumar, there is fracture of cievical bone in the left leg of the appellant. Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount is on the lower side.

6. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, it appears that no amount has been awarded towards general damages, towards conveyance and also towards special diet. Hence, the amount of award is further enhanced by Rs. 20,000. Thus, the total amount for which the appellant shall be entitled is Rs. 31,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application,

M.A. No. 1974/2004

7. In this case, it is submitted that appellant sustained fracture in Humerus bone of right hand. It is submitted that there was permanent disability of 34% in the right hand. Appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month.

8. Learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Mannulal v. Chhagan Lal Chauan and Ors. wherein a sum of Rs. 1,72,903 was awarded for fracture in right leg of the appellant resulting in permanent disability of 28%.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent submits that the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court (supra) is not at all applicable in the present case. In that case, the appellant was hospitalized for a period of six months while in the present case, appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month only. It is further submitted that in the present case, no permanent disability has been assessed by the Court. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that for how many days appellant was hospitalized. Dr. Smt. Kiran Bala Chaturvedi who has examined the appellant was not the Orthopaedic. Dr. Vijay Singh who has issued the disability certificate to the appellant was not the treating doctor and has examined after more than a year of the accident.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of'Manoharsingh v. Sheikh Nawi and Ors. in M.A. No. 1321/ 2000 posted on 24.6.2005 wherein the Single Bench of this Court has observed that merely because the doctor who treated the appellant was not examined it cannot be said that the nature and accident of injuries cannot be ascertained. The injuries can be ascertained by any qualified doctor after looking and examining the prescription, X-Ray report. X-Ray plates and the injured himself.

11. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Balu Singh v. Himmat Singh Thakur and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) DMP 328. where Division Bench of this Court has observed that: .

In motor accident cases it is rather difficult to procure the evidence of those doctors who had actually treated the patient as most of the time either they are not available or even if available they are not ready and willing to come to Court to get their evidence recorded. Under these circumstances the claimant cannot be al