JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25-01-2010 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No. 276/2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 30,400/- on account of medical expenses, pain & suffering, loss of amenities of life and other miscellaneous expenses suffered by the claimant Arun Das due to the accident that has occurred on 11-12-2003. In this appeal the claimant is seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. The claimant Arun Das was knocked down by an Omni bus bearing registration number AS-01/J-1554 on 11-12-2003 at about 01:30 p.m. when he was standing by the side of the road at Ahatguri. As a result of the said accident the claimant claims to have suffered fracture on his right leg and right hand besides grievous injury in the head, back bone and other parts of the body which has resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 40%. It is also the claim of the claimant that at the time when the accident took place the claimant was a 9 years old school going boy and as such an amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- has been claimed by way of compensation. 4. Besides the respondent/ Insurance Company none of the opposite parties contested the case. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal had framed as many as four issues for trial which are as follows: 1. Whether the accident toll place due to negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-01/J-1554? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom it is recoverable? 3. What will be the just and proper compensation? 4. Is the claimant entitled to any other relief? 5. Based on the evidence available on record the Tribunal had answered issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant by holding that the accident had accrued due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing number AS-01/J-1554. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were taken up together for discussions and decisions whereby it was held by the learned Tribunal that the claimant would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were taken up together for discussions and decisions whereby it was held by the learned Tribunal that the claimant would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 30,400/- on account of medical expenses, pain suffered loss of amenities of life and other miscellaneous expenses. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the certificate issued by the Doctor (PW-3) showing 40% disability incurred by the claimant by holding that there was nothing in the certificate to indicate that the disability is of permanent nature. On the basis of such findings, the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim for compensation made by the claimant on account of permanent disability allegedly suffered by him. 6. Ms. J. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the bulk of evidence in the form of medical vouchers, prescriptions and other documents available on record as well as the testimony of PW-3 Doctor, it was apparent that the claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability. Since it is a case of 9 years old school going boy hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the claim of the appellant more liberally and sympathetically and awarded a just compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant besides awarding further amount for future treatment. 7. Resisting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ Insurance Company submits that the certificate issued by the Doctor i.e. Exhibit-3 mentions that the claimant has suffered 40% disability. However, it is no where mentioned in the certificate that the disability is of permanent nature. Such being the position the learned Tribunal, according to Mr. Dutta, had rightly rejected the claim for compensation on the head of permanent disability. Mr. Dutta further submits that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. It appears from the arguments advanced by Ms. Paul that the basic grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim based on the plea of 40% permanent disability allegedly suffered by the claimant/ appellant by ignoring the testimony of the Doctor (PW-3). It appears from the arguments advanced by Ms. Paul that the basic grievance of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal had rejected the claim based on the plea of 40% permanent disability allegedly suffered by the claimant/ appellant by ignoring the testimony of the Doctor (PW-3). From a scrutiny of evidence available on record what can be seen is that the claimant has brought on record medical documents in the form of Exhibits-2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 which go to show that the claimant had in fact suffered head injury, multiple soft tissue injury as well as shaft humerus fracture. Exhibit-4 certificate issued by the GMC Hospital also clearly indicates that substantial injury had been suffered by the claimant on his head and other parts of the body. 9. The PW-3 Doctor, who had treated the claimant, had also deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant had suffered 40% disability of permanent nature due to the accident. The said testimony of the PW-3 has remained unimpeached during the time of cross-examination. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 questions the credibility of the witness PW-3 by stating that the Doctor has not mentioned about the disability being on of permanent nature in the Exhibit-3 certificate although there was no apparent reason for him not to do so. As such, oral testimony of the PW-3, which appears to be influenced by the claimant, cannot be relied upon for assessing the claim of permanent disability made by the claimant. The aforesaid submission made by Mr. Dutta cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondent No. 1 did not put the said question to the PW-3 during the cross-examination. Not even a suggestion was made to the PW-3 that the reflection made in Exhibit-3 did not relate to any ‘permanent’ disability. 10. As has been mentioned hereinbefore, the medical testimonies/ certificate as well as the vouchers available on record unequivocally go to show that the claimant had in fact suffered serious injury in the accident in question. The nature of injuries indicated in the medical certificate, more particularly, the head injury obviously has a serious potential of causing permanent damage to a 9 years old child at a tender stage of growth. The nature of injuries indicated in the medical certificate, more particularly, the head injury obviously has a serious potential of causing permanent damage to a 9 years old child at a tender stage of growth. The fact that the claimant had actually suffered permanent disability has also been supported by the opinion of the medical expert which cannot be completely brushed aside by this Court. What evidential value the medical prescriptions/ certificates as well as the testimony of the PW-3 would carry in the ultimate analysis is another matter. However, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid evidence and recorded a finding before taking a decision on the question of claim of the claimant on account of permanent disability. It is found from the record that the evidence advanced by the PW-3 has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. The testimony of PW-3 being of vital importance in the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had erred in law in rejecting the claim for compensation on account of permanent disability without recording any finding on the said claim based on the complete evidence available on record. 11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 25-01-2010 is held to be unsustainable in law and hence, is hereby set aside. Since the appellant/ claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation and considering the fact that no finding has been recorded by the Trial Court/ Tribunal on the evidence available on record in the form of testimony of PW-3 so as to decide on the question of loss allegedly suffered due to permanent disability, in the opinion of this Court, the matter needs to be remanded back for a fresh decision on all the issues by bearing in mind the observation made by this Court hereinbefore. The learned Tribunal would not only decide the question of further compensation, if any, payable to the claimant on account of permanent disability by examining the evidence available on record but also as regards any amount that may be found due and payable to the claimant on account of medical expenditure and compensation on account of mental shock and other related head. 12. 12. Since the case is pertaining to the year 2003, hence, learned Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the record of this case. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties the next date of appearance before the learned Tribunal is fixed as 18-04-2016. Needless to say that further amount, if any, awarded by the Tribunal would not adversely affect the amount already determined under the impugned award. No order as to cost.