Prabir Kumar Samanta and Soumitra Sen, JJ.@mdashThis misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 32 of 1999 by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Hooghly. By the said judgment and order, the claimant''s application u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ''the said Act'') has been dismissed.
2. The claimant-appellant was travelling in a private bus bearing registration No. WB 15-2612 on 19.2.1996. While the said bus was proceeding along N.H. 5, it suddenly capsized by the side of the road, as a result of which several passengers were seriously injured and some of them had died. The claimant-appellant is one of such passengers who was seriously injured. He filed the above application u/s 140 of the said Act for payment of compensation under no fault liability.
3. At the trial of the proceeding, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident, has been proved. It has also been proved in evidence that the claimant appellant suffered injury for which he had to be treated at Uttarpara Hospital for about seven days as an indoor patient. The discharge certificate as issued by the said Uttarpara Hospital shows that claimant appellant has suffered multiple injuries on his body. The claimant-appellant in support of his claim petition has produced a certificate, Exh. 6, issued by a doctor showing his permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent because of the injury suffered by him in the said accident. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the above petition only on the ground that the certificate as issued by a doctor is not admissible in evidence, as the said doctor had not treated the claimant-appellant, while he was treated for his injury at the said Uttarpara Hospital.
4. In this case, the question accordingly, arises for determination as to whether the said petition u/s 140 of the said Act should be dismissed on such ground.
5. In dealing with the said question, it may be noticed that a co-passenger of the claimant-appellant who similarly suffered an injury in the said accident filed a similar claim petition u/s 140 of the said Act which was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and order before this court. The Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated 11.7.2003 as passed in the said appeal being F.M.A. No. 361 of2001 has set aside the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal and allowed the application u/s 140 of the said Act by awarding statutory compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000 for the injury suffered by him. In that case also the permanent disablement certificate was issued by the self-same doctor who did not treat the claimant for the injury suffered by him. The Division Bench of this court has considered the several judgments of various other High Courts on this point and upon such consideration has observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation for the benefit of those who are victims of the rash and negligent drivers who play with the dangerous toys in the form of motor vehicles. Such an Act does not demand or deserve rigid technical interpretation. It is not necessary to dot every ''i'' and cut every ''t'' while dealing with a claim application under such Act. Etymological meaning of the word ''impairment'' has a very wide canvas and it covers ''weakening''. In this context, it is not possible to reject the evidence of a qualified doctor and the certificate issued by him.
6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has referred to a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported in
7. It is not unknown that the doctors who have treated the injured in Government hospitals are not always available for giving evidence. Sometimes it becomes very difficult to get their presence in court for several reasons. In such situation it becomes necessary to get examined by some other doctors who assess the current position of the injured. In the case in hand, the accident had occurred on 19.6.1996, the claimant-appellant was treated as an indoor patient in the said Uttarpara Hospital during the period from 20.2.1996 to 27.2.1996. The claim petition was filed on 4.3.1999, i.e., after expiry of three years. The said disablement certificate has been issued by the doctor on 12.10.1999. The said doctor has been examined as PW 2 in the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal on 24.2.2001. From the above facts and circumstances it can be safely presumed that while the claim petition was filed long after the expiry of three years from the date of the accident it was not possible for the claimant-appellant to obtain such medical certificate from the particular hospital where he was treated for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. The said doctor, PW 2, has further deposed in support of the said certificate which was issued more than a year before and has proved the same in his evidence. The said doctor could not be shaken in his cross examination. The veracity of the certificate issued by him has been established in his evidence. In such consideration we do not think that the above decision of Karnataka High Court as cited on behalf of respondent insurance company has absolute application in this case. The other decisions cited on behalf of the respondent insurance company, namely,
8. In view of the above discussion and more particularly in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court, we are also inclined to hold, that in the facts and circumstances of this case and on the basis of the certificate, Exh. 6, as issued by a doctor showing the permanent disablement of the claimant victim to the extent of 40 per cent, the claimant-appellant is entitled to succeed on the basis of his application u/s 140 of the said Act.
9. However, we make it clear that we have considered the question of admis- sibility of the said certificate in evidence only for the purpose of disposal of the petition u/s 140 of the said Act as filed by the claimant-appellant.
10. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal and hold that the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to a compensation for a sum of Rs. 25,000 as provided u/s 140 of the said Act. The respondent insurance company is accordingly directed to pay the aforesaid amount and/or to deposit with the Claims Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till such payment or deposit within a period of four weeks from date. In default, the claimant appellant shall be entitled to put the aforesaid award into execution.
11. The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
12. If urgent xerox certified copy is applied for by the parties, the same be delivered expeditiously.
