- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard SriLalji Sinha,learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A. K. Shukla, learned standing Counsel representing the respon dent No. 2. Despite due service of the notice nobody appears for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality of the order and judgment dated 29th Novem ber, 1980 passed by the respondent No. 2. Sri Badruddin, the respondent No. 1, sustained certain physical injuries while travelling in 286 Dn. Passenger Irain be tween Khurhat Railway Station and Paligarh Halt. He preferred a claim for com pensation before the respondent No. 2. On a finding that the respondent No. 1 had become totally incapable of moving around, the respondent No. 2 allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 and awarded him a compensation of Rs. 50,000.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for, the petitioners contends that the respon dent No. 2 committed a manifest error of law in awarding the maximum compensa tion of Rs. 50,000 on the finding of total disability. He submits that there is no evidence on record to sustain the finding of total disability. Indeed, according to him the finding of total disability arrived at by the respondent No. 2 runs counter to the evidence on record in the shape of the report of the Medical Board, a copy whereof is before this Court as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The Court has looked and scrutinized the impugned order and judg ment and also the report of the Medical Board, referred to above, and is of the firm opinion that the finding of the respondent No. 2 with regard to the total disability of the respondent No. 1 arising out of the in jury sustained by him cannot be upheld. In its report the Medical Board has clearly come to the conclusion that no functional abnormalsy was noticed on account of the injury sustained by the respondent No. 1. On the other hand the Medical Board was of the opinion that whatsoever deformities figured in the limbs of the respondent No. 1 could be corrected by giving proper treat ment. This report of the Medical Board could not be brushed aside by the respon dent No. 2 lightly. Overriding the report of the Medical Board, the respondent No. 2 has relied upon his visual observation. The opinion formed on the basis of visual obser vation by the respondent No. 2 could not, in the opinion of the Court, out-weigh the expert opinion of the Medical Board. Therefore, the very basis of awarding maxi mum compensation to the respondent No. 1 disappears.;