Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal rejected the evidence of the doctor and failed to grant any compensation towards disability and the loss of earning suffered by the claimant. It is submitted that when the doctor categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant suffered 55% of permanent partial disability, the Tribunal should have accepted the same, particularly, when there is no contra evidence by the respondent. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erroneously proceeded as if the claimant was given only Paracetamol and Ibuprofen tablets. Such a finding is contrary to the treatment records which is marked as Ex.P.6. The learned Counsel has strenuously argued that the claimant took the treatment for a very long time as outpatient in the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli and those details are found in Ex.A.6. The learned Counsel takes serious objection to the manner in the approach of the Tribunal relating to the doctor's evidence. He has taken me through the evidence of the doctor and also Ex.A.7, the disability certificate issued by the Doctor. The reason given by the Tribunal for rejecting the doctor's evidence is not sustainable. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.K.Ramesh and 2 others reported in 2009(2) TN MAC 163, and also another decision of this Court in Shanmugham Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trasnport Corporation reported in 2006(5) CTC 269.

"Grievous injury (1) After treatment given by TVMCH tendon Achilles - cut"

11. Ex.P.6 is the details of the treatment given to the claimant as outpatient upto 06.03.2000. I have perused those records. At the out set, I am not in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was given paracetamol and Ibuprofen only. That is according to the Tribunal, she was given pain killer and tablets for fever. According to Ex.P.6, such a finding of the Tribunal is not warranted. She was given different medicines and she was given physiotherapy continuously. In fact, it is recorded on 28.03.1998 that limping gait is getting minimised. That is, the claimant limped due to the injury. On 02.02.1999, it is recorded as follows: