Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) SECTION 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") reads as under: - - 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. - -(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shah be payable under sub -sec. (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub -section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty -five thousand rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub -sec. (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub -sec. (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for which death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -sec. (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Sec. 163A. Section 142 of the Act of 1888 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 -sec. (1) of Sec. 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 (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(2.) IN this matter, an interim award of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rs. twenty five thousand) under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 was passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7 (Fast Track)/MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 161/2011 on 18.9.2012. That interim award has been challenged by the Insurance Company on the following grounds: (1) that the claimant had submitted X -ray and Injury Reports issued from Government Kanwatia Hospital, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur while the Permanent Disability Certificate dt. 19.12.2011 was issued by Government Hospital of Ringas (District Sikar). It has been argued that the certificate issued by Medical Board, Ringas does not mention the permanent disability in relation to whole body of the claimant. (2) that the permanent disability should be of the whole body and not in relation to some limb only of the body. In support of the stay petition, the appellant wants to take support from the following rulings: - - (1) Union of India vs. Smt. Kamla Devi, (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6396/2011) decided on 2.12.2011 by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. In this ruling it has nowhere been mentioned that the Medical Board, Ringas cannot issue the Permanent Disability Certificate to the victims of road accidents. A person who is resident of Harmada, District Jaipur may either go to Ringas or Kanwatia Hospital, Jaipur which is also a Government Hospital because both are almost equally distant from his place of residence. Thus the ruling above mentioned does not come in way in the matter. (2) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., : 2011 (1) T.A.C. 785 (SC). In this ruling it was held that permanent disability of a Limb only should not be confused with permanent disability of whole body and while awarding compensation, it should be carefully examined that the Permanent Disability Certificate mentions the percentage of permanent disability in relation to the whole body or not. This ruling also nowhere circumscribes the scope of definition of permanent disability given in Section 142 of the Act of 1988 because under Section 142(b) of the Act of 1988 it has been specifically mentioned that permanent disability of a person shall be deemed to have occurred inter alia if it is proved that there is destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. This means that even if the joint only of any part of the body of the claimant is permanently impaired then also the person will be deemed to have suffered with permanent disability. Ten percent of permanent disability of a finger may not be equal to ten percent of permanent disability of the whole body but still a person having permanent disability in his finger will also be entitled to claim interim award of compensation under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and thus in this case, the ruling of Raj Kumar (supra) also does not come in way in passing the impugned interim order in favour of claimant Suresh Kumar. (3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vishnu & Ors., : 2012 (4) WLC (Raj.) 796. In this case it was advised that the Government should issue instructions to all the hospitals/jurists/medical officers that whenever Disability Certificates are issued, they should not only indicate the percentage of disability of individual organ of the body but also the extent of disability of whole body so that the difficulty may not arise before the Tribunal in assessing the true impact of disability for the purposes of awarding compensation. This ruling also does not come in the way of the present case, because the tribunal has passed the impugned interim award of Rs. 25,000/ - under the provisions of Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board of three doctors which may be relied upon for the purposes of interim award. It is hereby clarified that before the Tribunal passes the final award, it may ask the Medical Board to also clarify about the extent of permanent disability of the claimant in relation to the whole body of the claimant. This ruling does not debar the Tribunal to pass the interim award under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 on the basis of permanent disability of a part only of the body. In view of the above, the stay petition is bereft of any force and deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed. Notices of the main Civil Misc. Appeal to the respondent for final disposal of the appeal, returnable within two weeks be issued. ;