- (1.) PETITIONERS have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for expunction of certain remarks made against them by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar, in its award dated 02.11.2007 in MAC Cases No.4/2005, 5/2005 and 258/2005. Learned Tribunal while deciding aforesaid claim cases has found disparity in assessment of disability suffered by various injured persons. Learned Tribunal has found that injured Naresh @ Narsiram, who at the relevant of time was only 18 years of age, suffered grievous injury in the accident and had difficulty in walking as he suffered injury on ankle of his left leg whereas doctors assessed the disability to be 8% only, whereas injured Prabhudayal, who at relevant point of time was 54 years of age, whose injury was of lower degree as he suffered injury in his left hand and had restriction in upper movement of wrist upto 70 degree and lower movement of wrist upto 40 degree and apart from that there was less movement in thumb of left hand and he felt stress in his palm, even then doctors assessed his disability to be 30%. Learned Tribunal found disparity in percentage of disability suffered by injured persons and recorded that intentionally the doctors have assessed disability of Prabhudayal on higher side and that of Naresh @ Narsiram towards lower side, and therefore it has recommended disciplinary proceedings against erring doctors. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that adverse remarks against petitioners have been made ex-parte and as such the same is in violation of principles of natural justice because no notice was given to them prior to passing of adverse remarks. They assessed the disability only after they examined injured persons and looking to the injuries sustained by them, petitioners issued them disability certificates. Learned Tribunal did not take any opinion of an expert or medical board and straightaway passed adverse remarks in impugned award against petitioners. Learned counsel cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq � Civil Appeal No.3541/2012, wherein the Supreme Court held that judges cannot be said to be expert on medical science and rather they are laymen and therefore they cannot form any opinion as to correctness of opinion expressed in medical report.
(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that learned Tribunal on the basis of available record rightly opined that there is disparity in percentage of permanent disability suffered by injured persons. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing material on record, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has merely directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings and therein petitioners would have sufficient opportunity to explain their case, as in disciplinary proceedings a charge-sheet is served upon delinquent and he will have sufficient opportunity to reply the same declining the charges and, in doing so petitioners can justify their stand as to how they issued the permenent disability certificate and how, according to them, the disability was correctly assessed. In my view, nothing adverse has been commented against the petitioners as such all that has been said by learned Tribunal can be taken as tentative expression of opinion doubting correctness of the extent of disability assessed by petitioners. The Tribunal has merely directed commencement of disciplinary proceedings. The cited judgment of the Supreme Court is distinguishable in the facts of present case as that was a case of medical negligence. It is clarified that the opinion of the Tribunal would not create any binding effect as far as disciplinary authority is concerned. The disciplinary authority would be free to take its independent view of the matter to reach at the conclusion that disability was correctly assessed by petitioners.
(3.) WITH that clarification, the petition is disposed of. This also disposes of the stay application. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.;