- (1.) The appellant-Insurance Company has filed an application for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and award pending disposal of the appeal. On the aforesaid application, this Court directed the appellant- Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 70,380.00 with the Registrar General of this Court. On condition of such deposit, stay of operation of the impugned judgment and award was granted. Pursuant to the said order, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the aforesaid sum was deposited on 7th July, 2004 under Challan No. OD No. 938 dated 7th July, 2004. The claimant-respondents have filed an application for a permission for withdrawal of the aforesaid sum as deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company. Both the above applications are taken up for disposal along with the appeal itself by treating the same as on the day's list in presence of the learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company and the claimant-respondent.
(2.) The service of notice of this appeal and the aforesaid applications upon the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with as the said respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. The claim case arises out of an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimant-respondent. The claimant-respondent on 10th January, 2001 met with an accident caused by a truck having Registration No. WB-31/1549 at Digha Contai Road, District : East Midnapore. Due to such accident, the claimant-respondent received injury on his head causing loss of hearing by right ear which resulted in permanent partial disablement. The learned Claims Tribunal upon contested hearing has determined the compensation payable to the claimant- respondent at Rs. 76,000.00 in total by taking into account the extent of permanent disability of the victim as 30% as per the certificate issued by a Surgeon who has been examined in the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal as P.W.-2.
(3.) The said judgment and award have been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company on two fold grounds : (i) it has been contended that the learned Claims Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the aforesaid claim case as the victim suffered injury in the said accident which occurred in the District of East Midnapore and the permanent place of residence of the victim as per the F.I.R. exhibited in the proceeding gives an impression that the victim is also a resident of the district of East Midnapore : (ii) the learned Tribunal in the computation of compensation acted illegally in relying upon certificate of the said Surgeon (P. W.-2) for the purpose of ascertaining the percentage of permanent disabilities suffered by the victim even though the said Surgeon did not treat the victim while he was admitted in the hospital for treatment of his injuries suffered in the said accident.;