JUDGMENT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bali, dated November 28,1989 passed under Section 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) awarding Rs. 7,500/-as compensation for permanent disability.
2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (appellant) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the said award as the claimant-respondent did not suffer any permanent disablement as defined in Section 92-C of the Act.
3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent that in Clause (a) of Section 93-C of the Act, the word ‘permanent’ did not appear before the words ‘privation’ of any member or ‘joint’ as appeared in the start of the Clause and the injuries involved permanent impairing of the powers of left leg of the claimant within the meaning of Clause (b) of the Section. He also contended that in the order-sheet dated November 28,1989 of the file of the Tribunal, it is clearly recited that the claimant-injured was seen and was found that he could walk only on baisakhi’. He lastly contended that the various reports of the X-ray examination also go to show that the claimant Ram Kumar had suffered permanent disablement.
4. Admittedly, Rs. 3,750/- have been deposited by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in the Tribunal for payment to the claimant-respondent and the appeal is being contested for the remaining amount of Rs. 3.750/-.
5. There is absolutely no force in the appeal. It is recited in the order-sheet dated November 28, 1989 of the file of the Tribunal as under:
Behse suni gai. Prarthi Ram Kumar aaj nyayale main hajir hai jinko dekha gaya voh godio ke sahare chalta hai, voh chalne phirne main asthai rup se bina godio ke chal nahin sakta hai.
Admittedly, the accident took place on December 10, 1982. This was the condition of the claimant-respondent after about 7 years of the accident. Still the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has the audacity to say that the claimant Ram Kumar did not suffer any permanent disablement. Admittedly, this order-sheet was not challenged before the Tribunal and nothing has also been said against it in the memorandum of appeal. It has been observed in State of Maharashtra v. Ramnath Sriniwas Naik , as follows:
So the judge’s record is conclusive. Neither the lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself, but nowhere else. The report of the Radiologist, Department of Radiology, Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital-cum-Medical Research Institute, Jaipur dated 30.11.1983, paper No. C-19/2 runs as under:
Old fracture of the lower third of the left tibia with slight union of the fragments noted. Appreciable non-union at the fracture site is noted. There is also fracture of the fibula showing cross-union.
The Radiological findings of the Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital-cum-Medical Research Institute, Jaipur dated July 6, 1984, paper No. C-19/2 runs as under:
Old compound with osteomyelitis. Non-union treated elsewhere initially. Left leg lower half:
Comminuted fracture lower third of the left tibia showing non-union and osteomyelitis.
The Rediological findings of the same hospital dated 17.7.1984, paper No. C-19/3 runs as under:
Left Leg (AP & Lat).
(Check X-ray) old fracture of both tibia and fibula seen with evidence of non-union in tibia and borne-graft noted.
The report of Dr. Navin Chandra S.Mehta, Consultant Radiologist, Ahmedabad, paper No. C-19/4 dated 22.12.1985 runs as under:
There is transverse fracture of the lower end of the left femur with callus formation medically. The fracture appears impacted. Soft issue shadow is in normal limits.
There is old fracture of the lower ends of the tibia and fibula with malunion of the tibia, resulting in deformity.
It is thus well established from the reports also that the claimant Ram Kumar had received injuries involving permanent impairing of the powers of his left leg within the meaning of Clause (b) of Section 92-C of the Act and thus he had a permanent disablement. This case forcibly reminds me of the following strictures passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation in Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Narain Shankar 1980 ACJ 411 (SC):
(3) In the present case, the State Corporation put forward a false plea and contested the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur to avoid liability. It would have been more humane and just if, instead of indulging in wasteful litigation, the Corporation had hastened compassionately to settle the claims so that good will and public credibility could be improved. After all, the State has a paramount duty, apart from liability for tort, to make effective provision for disablement in cases of undeserved want Article 41 of the Constitution states so. It was improper of the Corporation to have tenaciously resisted the claim. It was right on the part of the Tribunal to have raised a rebuttable presumption on the strength of the doctine of res ipsa loquitur.
(4) The State Corporation has contested even the quantum of the claim. Indian life and limb cannot be treated as cheap, at least by State instrumentalities. The heads of claim have been correctly appreciated by the Claims Tribunal and the awards have been moderate. Here again, the State Corporation should have sympathised with the victims of the tragic accident and generously adjusted the claims within a short period. What is needed is not callous litigation but greater attention to the efficiency of service, including insistence on competent, cautious and responsible driving.
(5) We have had the advantage of Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, who represented the Corporation with a characteristic sense of fairness, but we are unable to desist from making the above observations which are induced by the hope that nationalised transport service will eventually establish its superiority over the private system and sensitively respond to the comforts of and avoid injury to the travelling public and the pedestrian users of our highways.
On the basis of this appeal, it can be said that the said strictures of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has no impact on the concerned officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Instead of paying the petty amount of the compensation to the grief-stricken claimant, they have filed the appeal and are seriously contesting it. The amount spent in filing and contesting the appeal may exceed the amount to be paid to the claimant. This tendency has to be curbed by awarding special costs so that the precious time of this Court may not be wasted in disposing of such appeals.
7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The claimant Ram Kumar is also entitled to get special costs of Rs, 1,000/-. A copy of this order be sent to the Hon’ble Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, for information and necessary action.