JUDGMENT Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. (Oral):- Richhpal – claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide its Award dated 20.11.1997. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.5000/- to him on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 2.5.1995 near Kherekan Petrol Pump on Dabwali-Sirsa road. 2. On the unfortunate date, the appellant along with Mukh Ram was coming from Village Ahmedpur Darewala to Sirsa on scooter bearing Reg.No.HYT-3859, when Canter bearing Reg.No.HR-24A-6192 hit the scooter. The scooter was badly damaged and both the occupants of the scooter suffered multiple injuries and were got admitted in Civil Hospital, Sirsa. FIR No.99 dated 4.5.1995 under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar Sirsa against Ram Partap – respondent No.1, driver of the Canter. 3. After considering the evidence led before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Canter by respondent No.1. On the question of compensation, the Tribunal held that the appellant had not been able to prove that the injuries, due to which he was rendered permanent disabled to the extent of 50%, were caused in the said accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded him a consolidated compensation of Rs.5000/- only. 4. To prove his claim, the appellant had examined Dr.R.K.Bishnoi (PW1), who stated that on 3.5.1995, he conducted Xray examination of Ish Pal son of Megh Raj and found commuted fracture of right leg bone (it may be noticed that the name of the claimant in the claim petition is Richhpal s/o Brij Lal). Dr.R.P.Dahiya, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa appeared in the witness box as PW3 and stated that on 2.5.1995 at about 6.00 pm, he had examined Ish Pal s/o Megh Raj and found the following injuries on his person: “4.5 cm x 2.5 cm lacerated wound was present on front of right leg in middle 1/3rd. It was bone deep and freshly and profusely bleeding. Bone was broken and was coming out of the wound. Bony discontinuity was present and there were multiple red abrasions and contusions on the front of right leg.” This witness stated that he also advised X-ray. It was bone deep and freshly and profusely bleeding. Bone was broken and was coming out of the wound. Bony discontinuity was present and there were multiple red abrasions and contusions on the front of right leg.” This witness stated that he also advised X-ray. Dr.Dahiya further proved the medico-legal report (Exhibit P-5) and its diagram (Exhibit P-51) and identified the claimant Ish Pal in Court by seeing his identification mark. He admitted that the patient had incurred lot of expenditure for the treatment of the injuries and also required special diet. In cross-examination, this witness also admitted having examined the appellant during his admission in Casualty Department, though, he could not tell as to for how long, the appellant remained admitted in the Hospital. After considering the above evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the discrepancy in the name of the appellant; one (Ish Pal s/o Megh Raj) mentioned in the medical records and the other (Richhpal s/o Brij Lal) depicted in the claim petition, casts a doubt on the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the appellant. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, this Court does not concur with the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the injuries to the appellant in the accident. 6. The appellant had also examined Dr.Joginder Singh (PW2), who categorically stated that on 19.9.1995, he medico-legally examined Richhpal son of Brij Lal regarding his disability in the bone, under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa. Dr.R.K.Boshnoi was also a member of this Medical Board. The Board found it a case of delayed union of fracture of both bones of lower leg right with chronic osteomyelitis. The disability may persist if it does not heal and get united. This witness also proved the disability certificate (Exhibit P-3) and admitted that the disability could decrease if proper treatment had been given to the injured. After about five months, that is on 10.2.1996, again the Medical Board of Doctors, which included this witness and Dr.Mohar Singh, Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Sirsa as also Dr.M.R.Bishnoi, reviewed the disability of Richhpal son of Brij Lal, aged about 28 years by conducting fresh Xray examination. It was concluded that disability of the Richhpal Singh was 50% which is of permanent nature and shall remain for his remaining life. It was concluded that disability of the Richhpal Singh was 50% which is of permanent nature and shall remain for his remaining life. In this regard, the permanent disability certificate (Exhibit P-224) was proved on record. 7. The Tribunal while discussing the disability certificates (Exhibit P3 and P-224) held that no doubt, these certificates have been issued by the Medical Board constituted by the doctors of Government Hospital, Sirsa, but at the same time, these documents do not prove that the disability of the appellant occurred due to the accident in question. Hence, the Tribunal did not grant any compensation on account of permanent disability. Such a view, in the opinion of this Court, is not correct. 8. As per the claim statement, the accident took place on 2.5.1995 at about 5.00 pm. The injured were immediately shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. The statement of Dr.R.P.Dahiya (PW3) is to the effect that on 2.5.1995 at about 6.00 pm, he had medico-legally examined Ish Pal s/o Megh Raj and found multiple injuries including a 4.5 cm x 2.5 cm lacerated wound on front of right leg in middle 1/3rd, which was bone deep. It was freshly and profusely bleeding. This witness also identified the appellant in Court as Ish Pal s/o Megh Raj by seeing his identification mark. Similarly, Dr.R.K.Bishnoi (PW1) stated that he conducted X-ray examination of Ish Pal son of Megh Raj and found commuted fracture of right leg bone. No fracture was seen in the left leg and foot. This witness too identified the appellant in the Court. Dr.R.K.Bishnoi (PW1) was also Member of the Medical Board, which examined the appellant on 19.9.1995 regarding the disability suffered by him and found that it was a case of delayed union of fracture of both bones of lower leg right with chronic osteomyelitis. This injury proved to be the cause of permanent disability when the Medical Board reviewed it on 10.2.1996 and issued certificate (Exhibit P-224) depicting that the appellant has suffered 50% permanent disability. 9. In considered opinion of this Court, merely because, different name is mentioned in the medical treatment record and the claim petition, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claimant, particularly, when the doctors, who treated him after the accident, identified him in Court from his identification marks. 9. In considered opinion of this Court, merely because, different name is mentioned in the medical treatment record and the claim petition, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the claimant, particularly, when the doctors, who treated him after the accident, identified him in Court from his identification marks. The injuries mentioned in disability certificate are corresponding to the injuries shown in the reports of the doctors, who examined him in the Hospital on 2.5.1995 and 3.5.1995. At the same time, there appears to be lapse on the part of the appellant in leading evidence before the Tribunal, that is, non-production of medical bills and receipts regarding the medicines and diet, taken by him. However, this lapse cannot brush aside the claim of the appellant that he suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident in question, which stand proved in the light of the above-discussed overwhelming evidence. 10. In view of above, this Court sets aside the finding of the Tribunal regarding the cause of disability suffered by the appellant and it is held that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% due to the injuries suffered in the accident in question. 11. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, since there is no evidence regarding the income of the appellant, so, holding him to be a labourer, this Court assesses his monthly income at Rs.3000/- per month. The loss caused due to the injuries is held to be Rs.1500/- [3000-(3000x50/100)] per month. Since, he was aged about 28 years (as mentioned in the disability certificate), so, multiplier of 17 is to be applied. Hence, the total loss of income comes to Rs.3,06,000/- (1500x12x17). 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subulaxmi vs. M.D.,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and another, [2013(1) Law Herald (SC) 631] : 2012(10) SCC 177 and S.Manickam vs. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd., [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3356] : 2013 AIR (SC) 2629 has held that an injured is entitled to separate amount for permanent disability apart from compensation under the head ‘loss of earning’ or ‘earning capacity’. In the light of this legal position, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.80,000/- for the disability suffered by him, in addition to Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, etc. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,91,000/- (3,06,000 + 80,000 + 5000). 13. In the light of this legal position, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.80,000/- for the disability suffered by him, in addition to Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, etc. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.3,91,000/- (3,06,000 + 80,000 + 5000). 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,91,000/-, that is, Rs.3,86,000/- (391000-5000) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The interest on the enhanced amount shall be paid at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realisation. ---------0.B.S.0------------