Heard Sri N R Ravikumar, the learned advocate

appearing for the appellant and Sri B C Seetharama Rao,

the learned advocate for 3^rd respondent.

2. The claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant

dated 02.04.2011 in MVC 249/2007 on the file of the

Principal

District

Judge

and

MACT,

Chikmagalur

is

3

dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is

before this Court in the instant appeal.

3.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall

be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

4. It is claimed that the claimant met with an

accident on 19.02.2007 while he was travelling in a TCS

bus bearing Regn No.KA.18/3156 near Bhattaramane

Sethuve, Indavara on Chikmagalur-Mallandur Road while

1^st respondent - the driver of the offending lorry bearing

Regn.No.KA.12/A.9786 drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the bus in which

claimant was travelling. It is further claimed that due to

the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and

he was admitted to M G Hospital, Chickmagalur.

5.

It is contended by the claimant that he was a

coolie earning Rs.8000/- per month. The tribunal

concluded that the claimant has not produced any

documentary evidence except producing Ex.P.4 – a true

4

copy of the wound certificate issued by the police, to

support his case and dismissed the claim petition. It is also

observed by the tribunal that the owner and driver of the

offending vehicle are not made parties.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in appeal

before this Court.

7. Appellant who met with an accident on

19.02.2007 filed claim petition. In support of his claim, he

has produced the wound certificate which is marked at

Ex.P.4. It is contended by him, that he was an inmate of

the bus which was dashed by a lorry driven by its driver

rashly and negligently. The tribunal disbelieved the case

of the claimant because in the cross-examination the

claimant has not answered as to who has caused the

accident. The tribunal has also disbelieved his claim that

Ex.P.4 which is the wound certificate does not bear the

seal of the Office which has issued the certificate.

5

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that in all connected cases arising from the same accident,

the tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the

claimants. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-insurer.

9. This Court has considered the evidence on record

and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant and the insurer.

This

Court

has

perused

Ex.P.4 - wound certificate. The wound certificate reveals

that the claimant has suffered 3 fractures of the ribs and

one tenderness in the right hand on account of the road

traffic accident. Merely because there is no seal on the

wound certificate, it cannot be said that the wound

certificate is fictitious.

10. Learned advocate for the appellant would

submit that Ex.P.4 - wound certificate is the certified copy

issued by the Police Department and it bears the seal of

the Police Department. Thus there is no difficulty in

holding that the injuries suffered by the claimant are on

6

account of the motor vehicle accident.

Since the tribunal

has dismissed the petition it has not undertaken the

exercise of assessing the compensation payable.

11. It is seen from the records that the claimant has

sustained 3 fractures in his ribs and the accident is in the

year 2007. Considering the nature of the injury and year

of accident Rs.15,000/- can be awarded for each of the

fractures and the claimant is entitled to compensation of

Rs.45,000/- for a fracture of 3 ribs. Rs.5,000/-is to be

awarded towards pain and suffering and other incidental

expenses on account of the injuries referred above.

12. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2011

passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT,

Chikmagalur in MVC 249/2007 are set aside.

13.

Appellant/claimant is entitled