- (1.) This appeal is against the judgment and award dated 28th July, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/learned 14th Additional District Judge, Alipore in Motor Accident Claim Case No.458 of 2002 registered under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner's case in brief is that on 11th March, 2002 at about 6:45 hours when she was proceeding by a rickshaw towards Haltu Girls High School at Haltu Kayastha Para crossing, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.WB 02-1050 which was coming from the opposite direction with a high speed, dashed against the said rickshaw van and as a result thereof, the petitioner sustained fracture injury on her left ankle. The offending vehicle was covered by a Policy of Insurance issued by the appellant/Insurer. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was removed and admitted to A.M.R.I. Hospital on the selfsame day, that is, 11th March, 2002. She was discharged from the hospital on 21st March, 2002 and even thereafter, it is claimed, she had to undergo treatment. It is the case made out by the petitioner in claim application that due to hospitalisation she had incurred a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) only towards her medical treatment. The details of her expenses have been filed by the petitioner in the Tribunal in the form of a list and she has also filed vouchers, bills and other receipts in support of her medical bills. She has filed series of medical papers, medical bills, cash memos, vouchers, x-ray plates with reports in support of her claim case. Opposite party No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle being No.WB 02-1050 has contested the case. Owner of the vehicle has not contested the case. However, from the details submitted by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal it appears that she incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 83,025/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Twenty Five) only. In support of her such expenses she also submitted supporting vouchers, receipts and bills before the Tribunal to prove the above-mentioned expenditure for a sum of Rs. 83,025/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Twenty Five) only.
(2.) In support of her case the petitioner has deposed as PW 1 and stated " as a result thereof, I sustained severe fracture injury on my person I sustained fracture injury on ankle of my left leg. Immediately after the accident I was removed to A.M.R.I. and admitted there on 11.3.2002 and was discharged therefrom on 21.3.2002. on 3.6.2003, I was admitted to K.D. Cure Nursing Home, Gariahat for treatment and was discharged therefrom on 6.6.2003. I am still under treatment. I cannot move without the assistance of a person. I am a School Teacher and used to earn Rs. 12,931 P.M. I met with the accident at the age of 55 years. I used to attend my school with the help of an attendant." She has also stated that among other documents she has filed medical papers, cash memos, Radiological test report, prescription, x-ray plates with reports, bills in support of her claim. She has stated that she is entitled to a compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand) only. In her cross-examination she stated " I will not produce Dr. Ranen Roy, Orthopedics of A.M.R.I. as witness to this case. I was absent from school on leave due to the accident for 68 days. I can produce the letter from the school showing that I was absent from school for 68 days on leave from 11.3.2002. I however, drew the full salary for the above period of absence on leave."
(3.) It appears from record that Dr. Ranen Roy, Orthopedics, treated her in A.M.R.I. Hospital and the said Dr. Ranen Roy also signed the discharge certificate in which it is written that she was admitted on 11th March, 2002 and she was discharged on 21st March, 2002. On a subsequent date she also got admitted at K.D. Cure Nursing Home and from the discharge summary of that Nursing Home it appears that Dr. Ranen Roy treated her. The said Dr. Ranen Roy never came before the learned Tribunal to depose that he had treated the petitioner. One Dr. P.K. Mondal was produced before the learned Tribunal to depose on behalf of Mrs. Sabita Basu, the petitioner who sustained fracture injury and he further deposed that he was of the opinion that the patient suffered partial and permanent disablement to the extent of 38% due to fracture and dislocation of left ankle joint. He deposed that he issued a certificate which bears his signature. The evidence of PW 2, Dr. P.K. Mondal is not believable at all and it is also not believable that the petitioner has sustained partial and permanent disablement to the extent of 38% due to fracture and dislocation of left ankle joint which is cured subsequently as it appears from the prescriptions and the discharge certificate. It is worth mentioning here that the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate from the hospital where she was admitted or from any other Government Hospital or any other doctor who treated her. This PW 2, in his cross-examination appeared and deposed that " I never treated the patient. I did not advise the patient for further X-ray. I did not even advise the patient for further treatment.";