G. Chandraiah, J.
1. Heard both the Counsel.
2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.3.2001 passed by the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Warangal in M.V.O.P. No. 888 of 1999 the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') filed the present appeal.
3. The case of the claimant is that he was working as Ghumastha (clerk) and earning an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month. On 18.1.1998 while he was going on scooter bearing No. ATS 7656 from Hanamakonda to Warangal, bus of the Corporation bearing No. AP 9Z 8724 came in the opposite direction and hit the scooter and as a result he received grievous injuries to the head and fracture of his left leg and immediately he was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal for treatment and that he was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and also at private hospitals and he spent an amount of Rs. 45,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and that he became permanently disabled and that he was bed ridden for 12 months and lost his job due to the accident. Therefore he filed claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
4. The Corporation filed counter and denied the averments in the claim petition and stated that at the time of accident there was heavy rush on the said road and the road widening works were taking place and the bus of the Corporation was coming on the left side of the road and due to traffic jam, the bus was stopped on the left side of the road and at that time the claimant and two others came on the scooter in high speed and unable to control the scooter as it was over leaded with three persons, the claimant fell down on the road widening drench and received injuries. At the time of accident, the claimant and another were under the influence of intoxication. The claimant's scooter not even touched the bus of the Corporation and the claimant and two others received injuries at their own fault but not due to the fault of the driver of the Corporation. With these averments inter alia the claim petition was sought to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 18.1.1998 was due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP-9-Z-8724 driven by its driver ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so to what amount and from whom ?
3. To what relief ?
6. In support of the case of the claimant, he got examined himself as P.W.I and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W. 1 and no document was got marked.
7. Appreciating the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. With regard to compensation, taking into consideration Ex. A-3 injury certificate which shows that he suffered one grievous injury on lower 1/3rd of left leg and another on left eye brow and that as per Ex. A-6 disability certificate as he suffered 40 per cent disability and also taking into consideration the amount spent towards treatment and further as there is no evidence with regard to the income of the claimant as a private employee and taking into considering the pain and suffering undergone by him, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under all the heads. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present appeal.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation while disputing the cause of the accident, mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on the injury certificate, disability certificate and the medical bills produced by the claimant without examining the doctor. She submitted that without examining the doctor, the injuries sustained and the extent of disability, cannot be assessed by the Tribunal and, therefore, non-examination of the doctor is fatal to the case of the claimant. Relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd. v. Mohd. Khaj Rassol Sayyed : 2003(5)ALD162 , she contended that medical bills and the medical certificates produced by the claimants are required to be proved in the manner provided under the Evidence Act and mere marking of the document does not amount to proof of the said documents. Therefore, she sought for remand of the matter to the Tribunal for examination of the doctor for assessment of the injuries sustained and the extent of disability.
9. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the claimant supporting the impugned order sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. With regard to the accident, the Tribunal considering Ex. A-1 copy of F.I.R. and also taking into consideration the admission of the driver of the bus who was examined as R.W. 1 that he had paid fine in respect of the said accident in the Court, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore in view of these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the accident and hence the dispute of the Counsel for the Corporation in this regard cannot be countenanced.
11. Coming to the grant of compensation, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation is that the claimant did not examine the doctor to prove the nature of injuries and the extent of disability. In this regard it is necessary to look into the averments in the claim petition and also the counter and the evidence available on record.
12. The case of the claimant is that due to the accident, he received grievous injury to his lead and fracture to his left leg. He was examined as P.W. 1 and deposed that he suffered fracture injury to the left leg and that the other persons who were travelling on the scooter, also received injuries. He further deposed that he was admitted in M.G.M. Hospital for treatment; that he was admitted for one month; that they applied P.O.P. to his left; that as he was not satisfied with the treatment, he shifted to Maheswara Orthopaedic, situated at Mandibazar; that the doctors placed rings around his leg by using Elizore Technic and; that the rings were removed after ten months. He got marked Ex. A-1 copy of F.I.R. in Cr. No. 13 of 1998 under Sections 337, 338 of I.P.C. of P.S. Hanamkonda; Ex. A-2 report of the Radiologist; Ex. A-3 would certificate; Ex. A-4 seven x-ray films; Ex. A-4 bunch of medical bills; Ex. A-6 disability certificate showing 40 per cent disability. He further deposed that he used to work as Gumastha (clerk) in E.N.R. Transport Officer and that the nature of work involved was going from shop to shop for collecting the fares pertaining to the good and that he used to earn Rs. 1,500/-per month. In the cross-examination he denied that at the time of accident, the bus was stationed at one place and that the road was being widened and that having consumed alcohol they fell in the ditch and sustained injuries and that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. In the cross-examination he stated that after his treatment in private hospital, he got himself examined and obtained Ex. A-6 showing 40 per cent disability and denied that he managed to obtain Ex. A-6.
13. From the above evidence of P.W. 1 it could be seen that he received fracture injury to his left leg and that he was admitted in M.G.M. Hospital. He also got marked Exs. A-3 to A-6, which are wound certificate, x-ray films, medical bills and the concession certificate showing that he sustained 40 per cent disability. Ex. A-6 concession certificate was issued by the Deputy Civil Surgeon, R.M.O., M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal (A.P.). Further from a perusal of the cross-examination of P.W. 1, there is no suggestion to P.W.I that he did not receive any injuries as mentioned in the documents marked on his behalf. Further no objection was taken while marking these documents. The documents marked on behalf of the claimant were public documents and hence they can be considered even without formal proof, more so, in the absence of any objection being taken while they were marked.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in Ramappa v. Bojjappa : [1964]2SCR673 , while considering the admissibility of the certified copies of public document held that the same need not be proved by calling a witness. Besides in the said case, no objection had been raised about the mode of proof either in the trial Court or in the District Court. In such circumstances, the Apex Court found fault with rejecting of such documents on ground that it had not been proved. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 9, is extracted as under for better appreciation:.The document in question being a certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness. Besides, no objection had been raised about the mode of proof either in the trial Court or in the District Court.
15. In this case, at the cost of repetition it could be seen that the claimant based on his evidence and also relying on Exs. A-1 to A-6 and as no objection was taken while marking the documents and as no rebuttal evidence with adduced by the Corporation with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, could prove that he sustained fracture to his left and the disability was assessed at 40 per cent as per Ex. A-6 concession certificate. Now the other question that incidentally arises for consideration is whether the strict rules of Evidence Act can be made applicable to the Tribunals. The Apex Court has considered this aspect in the decision reported in Union of India v. T.R. Varma : (1958)IILLJ259SC and held as under:
10. Now, it is no doubt true that the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses was not taken in the mode prescribed in the Evidence Act; but that Act has no application to enquiries conducted by Tribunals, even though they may be judicial in character. The law requires that such Tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the Conduct of the enquiry and if they do so, their decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed was not in accordance with that, which obtains in a Court of law.
16. In another decision of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore AIR 2001 Raj. 334, considering similar circumstances and also relying the judgment of the Apex Court referred to Union of India v. T.R. Varma (supra) and also considering the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Cherian v. T.A. Edward Lobo 1991 ACC CJ 534, held that strict rules of Evidence Act are not to be insisted on by the Tribunal on being limited Jurisdiction and held that public documents prepared while discharging official duties can be accepted in evidence without there being a formal proof. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 8 is extracted as under:
Thus, it is well settled that strict provisions of evidence Act are not be insisted by the Tribunal on limited jurisdiction. The Tribunals while dealing with cases for compensation arising out of Motor Vehicles accident are to follow such summary procedure as it thought fit and the certified copy of the F.I.R., Inspection Map and Site Inspection Map, Panchanama, Injury Report or the Post-Mortem Report, as the case may be, and other relevant documents prepared by the police or the doctor while discharging official duty are admissible in evidence without there being a formal proof.
17. Similar view was also expressed by a learned Single Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court reported in New India Assurance Co. v. Hurmat Begum AIR 1994 J&K; 1. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 8 is extracted as under:
Strict compliance with rules of evidence pleadings is not required in proceedings under M.V. Act, which are summary proceedings and any document of some probative value, which is not in dispute, deserves to be looked into, while fixing the liability.
18. In another judgment reported in Nain Dev v. Balwinder Singh (2001-2) 129 PLR 786, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana while considering a claim petition under 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where no doctor was examined to prove the extent and nature of injuries, granted compensation based on the evidence of the injured and the injury certificate. The relevant portion is extracted as under for better appreciation:
13. It is true that appellant did not examine the doctor to prove the medico-legal report and doctor was the best person to say what was the extent and nature of the injury of the appellant and also whether the injury suffered by the appellant was permanent disability or otherwise.
15. ...this Court is of the opinion that there is enough evidence on the record from which it can be inferred reasonably that the appellant suffered permanent disability. It has come in the statement of Shri Nain Dev while appearing as PW-1 that he received injury on his lower jaw and four teeth were broken down from the lower jaw. He further received injury on his forehead near right eye, lips and on his legs and arms. The medico-legal report Ex. P.1 fully justified that the appellant did suffer injuries. There is no rebuttal to the oral statement of the appellant either by the owner of the truck or by the driver....
19. From the above judgment of the Apex Court and other High Courts it is clear that strict rules of Evidence Act need not be followed by the Tribunals and summary procedure following the principles of natural justice have to be followed by the Tribunals. Moreover, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. In the present case the claimant based on his evidence and also based on the documents produced by him under Exs. A-2 to A-6 could prove that he sustained fracture to his left leg and sustained 40 per cent disability. The documents produced under Exs. A-2, A-3 and A-6 by the claimant were public in nature and furthermore the Corporation did not choose to raise any objection while the above documents were being marked and also did not choose to lead any rebuttal evidence, when they have sufficient opportunity. Moreover, in the counter filed by the Corporation they have also admitted that the claimant received injuries and they only disputed the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the Corporation, which was proved to be false based on the admission of the crime by the driver of the bus in the criminal proceedings. This was admitted by the driver of the bus of the Corporation in his examination before the Tribunal.
20. It is also to be seen that the accident occurred on 18.1.1998 and the claimant produced injury certificate and concession certificate, which is in the nature of disability certificate issued by the appropriate authorities and got marked the same without any objection. On the ground that doctor was not examined, if the matter is remanded, no useful purpose will be served, because even the doctor who issued the certificates have to depose based on the documents and he cannot be expected to remember what happened as early as in the year 1998 and depose about the same in the year 2007.
21. Therefore, I am of the view that non-examination of the doctor to prove the injuries sustained by the claimant, cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the claimant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd. v. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed (supra), held that medical certificates and medical bills produced by claimants required to be proved in manner provided under Evidence Act and that mere marking of documents through claimants does not amount to proof of said documents. The legal position laid down in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court is no doubt unexceptionable. But from a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be seen that in the said case when an application was filed for examining the doctor, it was rejected, as there is no such provision under the Workman's Compensation Act for referring the matter to Medical Board and therefore doctor need not be examined. This Court found fault with the dismissal of the application and held that without examination of the doctor, grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability cannot be assessed. But in the present case, as discussed above, there is ample evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the insurance company also did not choose even to object while marking of the document or even cross-examine on that aspect and further no rebuttal evidence was lead. In these circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred to United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyd's case (supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. For the foregoing reasons, in my considered view, the Tribunal based on the evidence, has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same does not warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.