JUDGMENT
R.S. Mongia, J.
1. On 18-3-1982, the claimant-appellant, Anil Kumar and one Subhash Chander were together coming on a two-wheeler Scooter from village and were going to their house in Sector-35, Chandigarh, when the scooter was hit by a Punjab Roadways Bus No PUN-(sic) driven by Pavitar Singh, Driver, as a result of which both Anil Kumar and Subhash Chander sustained injuries. They filed claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chandigarh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after recording a finding that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Sh. Pavitar Singh, driver of the Punjab Roadways Bus, awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to the claimants appellants. Dissatisfied with the Award of the Tribunal which is dated 4- 4-1984, Anil Kumar, the claimant, filed the present appeal.
3. The claimant at the time of accident was about 28 years of age and was working as a Cloth Merchant and in the claim application it is stated that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. Dr S. S. Sandhu, who had appeared as Pw, 3 stated before the Tribunal that Anil Kumar, claimant had sustained a compound fracture of the right ankle and closed fracture of the lateral condyle right femur alongwith legamental instability and further that he had suffered 65% physical impairment and loss of physical functioning to the lower extremities The learned Tribunal while discussing the evidence of Doctor Sandhu had observed that it would be in-appropriate to depend on his testimony as regards the physical impairment caused to the claimant having regard to the fact that he was merely a Junior Resident of Orthoepaedics Department and was thus, in the nature of a house surgeon and not even a Registrar of the said Department. Further, it was observed that significantly, no senior Doctor viz. Assistant Professor or Professor of the Orthoepaedics Department of the P.G.I., Chandigarh had been produced to prove the extent of physical impairment in respect of the claimant. The learned Tribunal then observed :-
“I am therefore, not inclined to place reliance wholly on the statement of Dr. S. S. Sandhu in this regard, even though, no rebuttal evidence has been produced by the respondents in this context.”
It was also noticed by the Tribunal that Dr Sandhu did not state that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for the alleged injuries sustained by him, for any period of time.
3. After going through the record of the case and going through the Award. I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was not correct in discarding the evidence of Dr. Sandhu on the ground that he was merely a Junior Resident of the Department. A Junior Resident can also opine in the matter. It is not suggested that he did not give his opinion which was not based on the record. Merely because Senior doctor was not produced, would not mean that the statement of Dr. Sandhu on the question of disability cannot be relied upon. If this statement was to be challenged, the respondents could very well summon Doctor of a higher status from the same department to say that the opinion of Dr. Sandhu was not correct.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant cited before me the judgment in F.A.O. No. 887 of 1984 decided by this Court on October 24, 1989, (Subhash Chander v. Punjab State etc.), F. A. O. No. 887 of 1984 which had been filed by Shri Subhash Chander, the co-injured of the appellant. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 8,000/- to Sh. Subhash Chander who had received injuries alongwith the appellant and a learned Single Judge of this Court had increased the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith 12% per annum interest from the date of the application. The learned counsel submits that in Subhash Chandler’s case (supra), the permanent physical impairment was only 20% and, therefore, taking into consideration, ‘this fact, the appellant should be given compensation atleast 3 1/2 times than given to Subhash Chander.
5. Subhash Chander had compound type of two fractures of the first and second meta for sels of the right foot alongwith the fracture of right clevical. In hospital, deprivement of the wounds was done under general anaesthesia and plaster was applied below the knee. He remained admitted in the hospital from March 19, 1982 to March 21,1982. On 25th of October, 1983, the Doctor had found the disability in the movement of the ankle joint and in the right foot there was moderate limitation of motions with pain. The permanent physical impairment has been assessed at 20 per cent. Subhash Chander had stated that he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. After taking into consideration the injuries of Subhash Chander as stated above and also the time spent by him in the hospital and also taking into account that he must have spent a couple of weeks at home while his foot was under plaster, the learned Judge had enhanced compensation from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.
6. In the case in hand, the appellant had mentioned in the claim application that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. There is nothing on the record that because of the injuries sustained by him, there was loss in his income. The nature of the injuries and the pain and sufferings of Subhash Chander was much more serious than the present appellant. No doubt, it has been stated by Dr. Sandhu that physical impairment is 65% which must necessarily affect the normal functioning of the limbs and the normal life of the appellant, I am of the view that taking into consideration the age of the appellant, his status in life and the nature of the injuries and the physical impairment, a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- inclusive of interest would be an adequate compensation on all counts.
7. Consequently, this appeal is accepted and the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant-appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in all on all counts inclusive of interest. Let this amount (minus the amount already paid including interest if any) be paid to the appellant within four months from today by sending a crossed-cheque or bank draft in the name of the, appellant failing which the above-said amount would also carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Award till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.
