S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the order of award passed by Sri Anwar Ahmad, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nawadah, dated 14th September, 1993, The defendant-opposite party of that Claim Case No. 2/88/2/99 is appellant here.
2. The case of the applicant-respondent was that on 11th November, 1987, at 6.00 p.m. he was going to the market for purchasing vegetable. He was accompanied by his cousin A.W. 1. When he reached near Karmbir Press in Bijay Bazar, Nawadah, the appellant O.P. Krishna Prasad Excise Inspector of Hasua riding Motor-Cycle bearing Regd. No. BP 1-5704, knocked him down as a result of which he sustained fracture of his right leg. He was carried to the Hospital by Sant Kumar, his cousin where his fardbeyan was taken by the Police Officer and subsequently a case was registered in this connection for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. He remained confined in the Hospital for several months and even after recovery, he failed to get his right leg completely cured. He was still walking limp-ingly. Therefore, he sustained permanent disablement of his right leg and, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 35,000/- including the cost of treatment, etc.
3. The O.P. appellant appeared in the Court below and contested the respondent's case on the ground, inter alia, that, of course, near the Kambir Press, he had found the respondent lying in injured condition and, therefore, he carried him to the Hospital on his Motor-cycle, because the victim was a resident of his own Mohalla. In the Hospital, he was accosted by Sant Kumar, cousin of the victim and he also went to the house of the victim to intimate his family members about the alleged occurrence. Since he had not caused the incident, he was not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence of so many witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant had, of course, caused accident of the victim, namely, Kamal Nayan @ Kanchan and the victim had sustained permanent disablement of his right leg. So compensation of Rs. 15,000/-was awarded to the victim. The Tribunal had analysed the evidence of each and every witness examined on behalf of appellant and the applicant-respondent of this case. I find that A.W. 1, was the cousin of the victim Sant Kumar. His evidence is that he along with Kamal Nayan (A.W. 3) were proceeding to the market and near the Karmbir Press, the appellant dashed his cousin by his Motor-cycle. He had given the Regd. Number of the Motor-cycle and he had identified the appellant in Court. The contention of the appellant's lawyer is that the victim and his cousin both were proceeding on a Motor-cycle and they met with an accident and when the appellant reached the place of occurrence, he found Kamal Nayan in injured condition and, therefore, he carried him to the Hospital. No body had noted the Regd. Number of the Motorcycle. But, this contention is belied by the contention of A.W. 1. The evidence of A.W. 1 and A.W. 3, suggests that both the cousins were proceeding on foot and one of them was dashed by a Motor-cycle. Even if it be assumed that the victim was unable to spot the Registration Number of the Motor-cycle, it is quite possible that A.W. 1 was in a position to note the Regd. Number of the Motor-cycle and identify, the culprit. Moreover, A.W. 1 has clearly identified the appellant in Court and he had also given the Registration Number of the Motor-cycle. The victim was also examined by the Police in the Hospital and his fardbeyan was exhibited by the Tribunal (Ext-12). A formal F.I.R. was also exhibited as Ext-11, All these exhibits contained the Regd. Number of the Motor-cycle, and the name of the appellant. So, there was clear and definite identification of the appellant as the culprit of the accident resulting into the fracture of the right leg of the victim. The case of the appellant and his evidence as O.P.W. 1 is to the effect that near the Karmbir Press, he had found the victim in injured condition and the people assembled there were crying that a man of his own Mohalla was injured in an accident. So taking pity on the victim of his own Mohalla, he carried him to the Hospital on his own Motor-cycle. Here he was met by A.W. 1, cousin of the victim who admitted the victim in the Hospital and thereafter appellant Krishna Prasad along with the victim's cousin went to the house of the victim to intimate his family members about the accident. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that perhaps, the victim was known to the appellant and so his identification was not in doubt. It is the O.P. who has taken a plea that the victim was of his own Mohalla although the respondent and his cousin did not take this plea. So, perhaps, the O.P. took the plea regarding the victim being of his own Mohalla, because, perhaps, he was identified at the spot and his Motor-cycle was also detected by the witnesses of and the victim's cousin. The plea of victim of his own Mohalla taken by the appellant O.P. was, perhaps, taken to support his case of taking pity on the injured victim. It is also not probable that the appellant shall take the victim to the Hospital and then he will also go to his family's house to intimate about the alleged occurrence just to be identified and to be picked up for prosecution. All the pleas of the appellant taken in this connection, therefore, do notappearto be convincing. So the circumstances suggest that the appellant was very well identified and Regd. Number of his Motor-cycle was noted or taken in mind by the victim's cousin at the spot, and it was because of this fact that in the fardbeyan of the victim, the Registration Number of the Motor-cycle has been clearly mentioned. One eye-witness was also examined on behalf of applicant in the lower Court, who was A.W. 4 Chandra Shekhar Jha. He was present at the P.O. and he claimed to identify the culprit, if confronted in Court. He had also given his statement before the Police. This witness was at the gate of his Marwari Basa near the P.O. So besides, the victim's cousin, there was another witness to support the alleged occurrence where A.W. 2 was knocked down. On the basis of the evidence in the lower Court, the trial Court came to the definite finding/conclusion that the alleged accident caused by the appellant was proved. I do not think that this analysis by the Tribunal was wrong on any plausable ground. So far the compensation amount is concerned, the Court fixed it at reasonable amount because the total claim was for Rs. 35,000/-. So far as the case of permanent disablement is concerned, all the witnesses who were examined were the family members of the victim and they said that the victim used to limp even after his recovery. This limping leg of the victim would, of course, amount to permanent disablement. So I do not think that this compensation amount for permanent disablement was unjustified or as high as to invite an interference from this Court.
5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.