JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. Appellant, Raj Kumar, is the claimant who had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). Vide award dated August 3, 1992, the claim petition field by the appellant was disposed of by the learned Tribunal after holding that the driver of the offending bus was not in any- manner rash or negligent. An amount of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded as compensation under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant preferred the first appeal before this Court. Learned Single Judge reappreciated the entire evidence available on the record. On such reappraisal, learned Single Judge held that the driver of the bus was responsible for driving the bus rashly and negligently, which had resulted in injuries to the claimant. Accordingly, the findings in that regard was set aside. Thereafter, the learned Judge assessed the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. An amount of Rs. 41,000/- was assessed as the compensation payable to the claimant. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant was partly allowed and the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 41,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation was held to be payable to the claimant. It was further directed that the aforesaid amount shall be payable by the respondents, jointly and severally.
2. The claimant-appellant has still remain dissatisfied and has approached this Court through the present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. At the out set, we may notice that neither any cross objections have been filed by the respondents challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus nor any arguments in this regard have been addressed before us. Accordingly, the aforesaid finding has attained finality.
4. In these circumstances, the only issue which remains alive for adjudication before us is quantum of compensation payable to the claimant.
5. From the perusal of the record, we find that the claimant had suffered injuries on his legs and his right thigh had been fractured in the accident. Surgery was performed on his right leg. He remained in the hospital for a period of about one month. The medical examination of the claimant was conducted by Dr. Geeta Suri. The medico-legal report is Ex.P1. The said report has been duly proved by Dr. P.R. Pruthi, who was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Ladwa. Dr. Pruthi had stated that he being the colleague of Dr. Geeta Suri was conversant with her handwriting and signatures. He further proved the X-ray report, Ex.P2, bearing the signatures of Dr. Geeta Suri, The said report duly supported the version of the claimant with regard to injuries suffered by him. It further showed that the doctor treating the claimant had applied traction and a surgery had been performed upon him by putting a rod/plate in the fractured bone. Dr. Pruthi further stated that the aforesaid plate would be taken out after expiry of one year from the date of surgery. It was further stated by the doctor that at the time of his statement, he examined the right leg of the patient and had found that the same was shorter than the left leg by 2 cms. On that account, it was opined by Dr. Pruthi that the percentage of permanent disability suffered by Raj Kumar, claimant, was to the extent of 10% to 15%. The patient also suffered a restriction of movement in the right hip joint.
6. The aforesaid opinion of Dr. Pruthi PW1 was not accepted by the Tribunal. It was held by the Tribunal that in the discharge slip there was no mention with regard to the factum of shortening of leg. The learned Single Judge also assessed compensation payable to the injured-claimant on the basis that he had suffered a fracture of the leg and had suffered other injuries and also ruled out of consideration the statement of Dr. Pruthi. However, in our considered view, the statement of Dr. Pruthi could not be ruled out of consideration on account of mere fact that in the discharge slip of the patient, no mention has been made with regard to the shortening of leg. The discharge slip was not required to contain the aforesaid detail. The opinion of the doctor was based upon the medico legal report Ex.P1 and the X-ray report Ex.P2 and further on his actual physical examination of the patient. There was absolutely no justification to rule out the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Pruthi with regard to factum of shortening of the leg of the patient by 2 cms. If the aforesaid fact was wrong and was being disputed by the respondents, they should have led positive evidence to rebut the same. No such evidence was led by the respondents. In these circumstances, the unrebutted statement of Dr. Pruthi is liable to be accepted. A conclusion, therefore, has to be drawn that the injured-claimant had suffered a permanent disability of 10% to 15% because of shortening of his right leg by 2 cms. At the time of accident, claimant-Raj Kumar, was a student of 10+1 in Indira Gandhi National College, Ladwa. He was aged 18 years. It is apparent that he had a long career ahead of him. The permanent disability suffered by him would always prove to be a handicap in his career and would also disqualify him from various vocations in life. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Single Judge.
7. Learned Single Judge has assessed the compensation for pain, shock and suffering at Rs. 25,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 16,000/- has been assessed as medical reimbursement and reimbursement for other charges. However, we feel that because of permanent disability suffered by the claimant a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be just and appropriate compensation which should be payable to the appellant. Of course, the aforesaid compensation would be inclusive of medical and all other reimbursements. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in toto alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the realisation of the compensation. The aforesaid amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.