ORDER
A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. The appellant/claimant has filed the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the enhancement of the amount of award dated 28th February, 2001 in Claim Case No. 44/2000 passed by learned Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain, whereby the amount of Rs. 7,000/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of application i.e., 17.11.1997 was provided to the appellant.
2. The case of the claim is that on 8.7.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. when the claimant was going in her Luna then near Church Colony, Indore, respondent No. 2 Rajendra Singhal, while driving Maruti Car rashly and negligently, has hit the Luna and in the accident the nasal bone of the claimant was fractured and she has also received the injuries on other parts of her body. That the claimant is a doctor and she was admitted for 45 days in the hospital. That respondent No. 1 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is insurer and as such the amount of Rs. 1,08,000.00, jointly and severally, be provided to the claimant from the respondents.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3 has pleaded that the driver of the Maruti Car was not having the valid licence and as such the Insurance Company is not able to pay the amount.
4. The learned Tribunal has held that the claimant has received the injury on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car and as such she is entitled to get the amount as stated above.
5. The claimant has prayed for the enhancement of the amount on the ground that the fracture of the nasal bone to the claimant has caused the permanent disfiguration and she was deprived from doing her normal work for 45 days and as such the amount is on lesser side and it should be enhanced.
6. From the statement of the claimant and the M.L.C report of M.Y. Hospital, it is clear that the claimant has received the fracture of her nasal bone and she had 2 minor abrasions on her face and leg. The claimant has not filed the X-ray report to show whether the fracture was compound or linear or simple in nature. The claimant has also not filed the medical bills to prove the expenditure incurred by her in her treatment. Dr. Kapdiya (P. W. 2) has stated that after the examination of the claimant, he has opined that there was disfiguration of the claimant on account of the fracture of nasal bone. Dr. Kapdiya (P.W. 2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not adopted any method to calculate the disfiguration and that his* opinion about the disfiguration is not based on any manual. He has further admitted that the mark of the injury was near the eyebrow and as such he has not advised the claimant for the plastic surgery. The length, depth or the size of the scar was not mentioned by the doctor in his report. In the aforesaid circumstances the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the claimant has not received the permanent disfiguration on account of the injury on her face.
7. It is contended that the claimant was treated for 45 days but looking to the place of the injury and the nature of the injury, it cannot be said that she was deprived of her doing normal work on account of such minor injury, the claimant has not filed the record of the office to show that she was on leave for 45 days. However, looking to the fracture on the nose of the claimant and her qualification and profession, it will be proper to enhance the claim by Rs. 5,000/-.
8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed partly and the claim amount is enhanced by Rs. 5,000. The total amount the claimant will get will be Rs. 12,000. The claimant will receive the interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of presentation of the application on the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.