- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 06.03.2002 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the claim of the appellant was partly allowed and Rs.12,000/- were awarded.
(2.) WHILE praying for enhancement of the compensation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he received seven injuries, out of the said injuries one injury was grievous. The said injury resulted in permanent disablement. Due to accident, his capacity to lift the tyre has come to an end. The appellant has also sustained permanent disability to the extent of 7%. Permanent disablement certificate Ex.5 was also tendered in evidence, proved and exhibited. The injuries have resulted in permanent disablement to the extent of 7% and as such, the learned Tribunal ought to have determined the compensation by adopting suitable multiplier as his working capacity has been reduced to the extent of 7%. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that claimant remained hospitalized for a considerable period of more than six months. The appellant was under treatment and during this period, he under went various operations and during the period of hospitalization and treatment, he has incurred huge amount. The learned Tribunal seriously erred in limiting treatment expenses to meagre extent. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider that while a person is seriously injured lying in hospital, it is not possible to collect each and every bill. Attendants/near relatives would prefer to provide for quick medicines, rather than for running to procure the bills. The amount claimed under this head deserves to be awarded. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, while opposing the enhancement, submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant were simple. The grievous injury is only an injury of fracture of the ribs. He was never hospitalized. His disability certificate has been disbelieved and, as such, he is not entitled to the enhancement. Heard. Taking up the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal should have taken into consideration the disability certificate, learned counsel for the appellant himself pointed out that the only disablement suffered by the claimant was that he found difficult to breath and could not perform heavy work. Whereas, as per Section 142 (a), 'permanent disability' is if it has resulted only in privation, permanent imperil or permanent disfigurement. Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under :- "142. Permanent disablement.- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving :- (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or 3 CMA No.670/2002. (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face." The disability as suffered by the claimant, i.e., breathing problem and difficulty in performing heavy work, cannot be said to be covered under any of the above heads as detailed under Section 142 of the M.V.Act.
(3.) MOREOVER, the appellant had filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of alleged disability. The application was dismissed. The appellant challenged the same by filing an appeal CMA No. 692/99 before the High Court. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. At the time of filing of the said application, the statement of Dr. Anamendra Sharma who had given the said certificate, was duly examined. In spite of the same, the said application was dismissed after considering the said statement. Thus, no fault can be found with the order, refusing to grant any compensation under this head. Taking into account the second argument that the appellant had spent six months in the hospital and that he had incurred various expenses, too, has no merit in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute that the claimant was not able to produce any evidence to show that he remained hospitalized. No proof of any medical expenses was filed. No bills were submitted. The claim was, therefore, totally vague. Taking into account that the alleged accident was of the year, 1995 and no bills or proof of any hospitalization was submitted, the grant of Rs.12,000/-, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, along with 9% interest from the date of claim petition, was fair and just. No other argument was raised. ;