Prabir Kumar Samanta, Joytosh Banerjee ( 1 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company has filed an application for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and award pending disposal of the appeal. On the aforesaid application, this Court directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 70,380. 00 with the Registrar general of this Court. On condition of such deposit, stay of operation of the impugned judgment and award was granted. Pursuant to the said order, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the aforesaid sum was deposited on 7th July, 2004 under Challan No. OD No. 938 dated 7th July, 2004. The claimant-respondents have filed an application for a permission for withdrawal of the aforesaid sum as deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company. Both the above applications are taken up for disposal along with the appeal itself by treating the same as on the day's list in presence of the learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company and the claimant-respondent. ( 2 ) THE service of notice of this appeal and the aforesaid applications upon the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with as the said respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceeding before the claims Tribunal. The claim case arises out of an application under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimant-respondent. The claimant-respondent on 10th January, 2001 met with an accident caused by a truck having Registration No. WB-31/1549 at Digha Contai Road, district : East Midnapore. Due to such accident, the claimant-respondent received injury on his head causing loss of hearing by right ear which resulted in permanent partial disablement. The learned Claims Tribunal upon contested hearing has determined the compensation payable to the claimant-respondent at Rs. 76,000. 00 in total by taking into account the extent of permanent disability of the victim as 30% as per the certificate issued by a surgeon who has been examined in the proceeding before the Claims tribunal as P. W.-2. The learned Claims Tribunal upon contested hearing has determined the compensation payable to the claimant-respondent at Rs. 76,000. 00 in total by taking into account the extent of permanent disability of the victim as 30% as per the certificate issued by a surgeon who has been examined in the proceeding before the Claims tribunal as P. W.-2. ( 3 ) THE said judgment and award have been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company on two fold grounds : (i) it has been contended that the learned Claims Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the aforesaid claim case as the victim suffered injury in the said accident which occurred in the District of East Midnapore and the permanent place of residence of the victim as per the F. I. R. exhibited in the proceeding gives an impression that the victim is also a resident of the district of East midnapore : (ii) the learned Tribunal in the computation of compensation acted illegally in relying upon certificate of the said Surgeon (P. W.-2) for the purpose of ascertaining the percentage of permanent disabilities suffered by the victim even though the said Surgeon did not treat the victim while he was admitted in the hospital for treatment of his injuries suffered in the said accident. ( 4 ) SO far as first point is concerned the claimant-respondent in his claim petition under Section 163a of the said Act has mentioned his permanent address as at village and post Sridhar Nagar under Pathar pratima Police Station in the District of South 24 Parganas. The claimant-respondent also has deposed in the proceeding by saying that he has been residing at the said place. Such deposition has not been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company in the cross-examination nor any suggestion has been put to him by the appellant-Insurance Company during his cross-examination. The learned Claims Tribunal has accordingly come to the finding of fact that the claimant-respondent is the resident of the aforesaid village in the district of South 24 Paraganas which finding could not be assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company before this Court on the basis of any materials on record, as being perverse. The learned Claims Tribunal has accordingly come to the finding of fact that the claimant-respondent is the resident of the aforesaid village in the district of South 24 Paraganas which finding could not be assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company before this Court on the basis of any materials on record, as being perverse. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the findings as aforesaid by the learned Claims Tribunal that the victim is a resident of the district of South 24 Parganas and as such the learned claims Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid claim case. That apart, in this regard reference may be made to the provisions of section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides as under : "section 21. Objections to jurisdiction.- (1) No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. " ( 5 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company at the hearing of this appeal has failed to point out by any cogent reason that because of disposal of the aforesaid claim case by the learned Claims Tribunal there has been a consequent failure of justice. It is also not the case of the appellant-Insurance company that if aforesaid claim case had been filed before the Claims tribunal having the territorial jurisdiction in the district of East Midnapore then the same would have resulted in dismissal. Such being not the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company, we are of the view that even assuming, though not admitting at all that the learned Claims Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim case, the judgment and award passed by him is not vitiated on such ground alone. The quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal can be assailed in this appeal without, therefore, going into the question as to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Claims Tribunal in deciding the aforesaid case in view of the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 6 ) IN all such reasonings, the contention put forward by the appellant-Insurance Company in this regard is rejected. ( 6 ) IN all such reasonings, the contention put forward by the appellant-Insurance Company in this regard is rejected. ( 7 ) LASTLY, the impugned award has been challenged on the ground that the Surgeon who certified the permanent partial disability of the victim as 30% is not the particular doctor who treated the victim while he was admitted in the hospital for treatment of his injuries suffered in the said accident. It appears from the records of this case that the accident occurred on 10th March, 2001. On the self-same day, he was removed to the Calcutta medical College Hospital and was admitted therein. The injury report at the time of admission at Calcutta Medical College Hospital has been produced in the trial which discloses that the victim had one stitch over occipital region of the skull with bleeding from right ear. The discharge certificate issued by the Calcutta Medical College and Hospital also discloses mild conductive deafness in right ear. It further appears that an Audiological Test was conducted by the E. N. T. Department of Calcutta Medical College and Hospital and in such test also it has been reported there is conductive loss of hearing in the right ear. The C. T. Scan also reveals the right temporal linear tracture and right parietal minimal subdural haematoma. The certificate of the surgeon (P. W. 2) has been marked as Exbt. 7'. It appears therefrom that the said P. W.-2 has considered all the reports including the C. T. Scan Report of the brain, the Audiological Report as well as the Discharge Certificate of the Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. The said Surgeon upon clinical examination of the victim has reported his findings as to the loss of hearing by right ear, pain in the neck region on movements of heard, lack of concentration and forgetfulness local tenderness of right temporal area of skull, tenderness with limited flexions and lateral rotations (both sides) with headache and dizziness. Upon such findings the permanent partial disability has been certified as 30% by the said Surgeon (P. W.-2 ). The said P. W.-2, has been examined in the proceeding and has proved his certificate. ( 8 ) IT has already been held by this Court in F. M. A. 364 of 2001 (Ratan Mali v. The New India Assurance Co. Upon such findings the permanent partial disability has been certified as 30% by the said Surgeon (P. W.-2 ). The said P. W.-2, has been examined in the proceeding and has proved his certificate. ( 8 ) IT has already been held by this Court in F. M. A. 364 of 2001 (Ratan Mali v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.) that merely because the certificate of permanent partial disability of the victim has been issued by a Doctor who did not treat him while he was admitted in a hospital the same cannot be discarded as being non-admissible evidence for the purpose of computation of compensation for the simple reason that in a case where the victim was treated in a Government Hospital, a certificate of permanent partial disablement is not issued by the Doctor of a Government Hospital after the victim is discharged therefrom in normal course of business. It is far more important to note that while the victim is being treated in a hospital, his permanent partial disability does not always become evident at that stage. Such permanent partial disability becomes evident after some time is passed when it is not possible for the victim to get such certificate from the doctor of a Government Hospital who had treated him while he was admitted therein. We, therefore, reject the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the certificate of permanent partial disability of the victim having been issued by the Surgeon who did not treat the victim while he was admitted in the Calcutta Medical College and Hospital, should not have been relied upon for the purpose of computation of compensation in this case, particularly when the said Surgeon has deposed in the support of the certificate issued by him and has not been shaken in cross-examination by the Insurance Company. Thus, in view of the discussions made above we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same shall accordingly stand dismissed. ( 9 ) EVIDENTLY, the aforesaid claim case has been disposed of by determining the compensation at Rs. 76,000. 00 only while the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of statutory deposit and further sum of Rs. 70,380. 00 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28th June, 2004 with this Court. ( 9 ) EVIDENTLY, the aforesaid claim case has been disposed of by determining the compensation at Rs. 76,000. 00 only while the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 by way of statutory deposit and further sum of Rs. 70,380. 00 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28th June, 2004 with this Court. It thus appears that the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited in all a sum of Rs. 95,380. 00 with this court. We, therefore, direct that the claimant-respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid sum of Rs. 76,000. 00 as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from this Court and the balance amount shall be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. The learned Registrar General is accordingly directed to disburse the aforesaid sum of Rs. 76,000. 00 to the claimant-respondent no. 1 upon proper identification and receipt. Upon such disbursement, the balance sum shall be disbursed to the appellant-Insurance Company. ( 10 ) THE above applications and the appeal are accordingly disposed of. ( 11 ) THE lower Court records be sent down immediately along with a copy of the aforesaid order.