ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The accident was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that the appellant who is an auto rickshaw driver had to be admitted in Vidyasafar Hospital after sustaining injury out of such accident. He had to stay in the hospital for two days. The learned Judge accepted the version of the appellant/claimant, however, granted compensation only to the extent of Rs. 5.000/- as general damage. The learned Tribunal observed that there was insufficient medical evidence tendered. Hence this appeal by the appellant.
(2.) Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant has contended as follows : i) Under Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988) the permanent disablement has been defined which includes destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Hence the learned Judge should have applied the principles laid down under Section 140 of the said Act of 1988 granting one time compensation at least to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. ii) Under the said Act of 1988 a structured formula has been prescribed in the second schedule. The accident of disablement has defined therein. It has also been prescribed that the adjudication of disablement would be according to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Judge did not follow such guideline.
(3.) While elaborating his argument Mr. Banik has drawn our attention to the medical evidence tendered before the learned Tribunal. He has taken us to the discharge certificate issued by the Vidyasagar Hospital as well as the medical certificate of Dr. R K. Mondal suggesting 10% permanent disability due to pain on nose and difficulty in breathing Mr. Banik has also taken us to the deposition of Dr. Mondal before the learned Tribunal.;