SBCMA No.1752/2006 Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 1 SBCMA No.1752/2006 Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 18.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.GL Choudhary, for the appellant. Mr.RK Mehta, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant's grievance is that the tribunal awarded less damages on account of non-production of X-ray report to prove the fracture suffered by the appellant and, therefore, the award dated 25th April, 1998 passed in Claim Case no.46/1995 may be enhanced appropriately. The appellant submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The appellant annexed X-ray report obtained from the Government Bangar Hospital, Pali to show that appellant SBCMA No.1752/2006 Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 2 suffered two fracture in one hand and one fracture in second hand and also suffered dislocation. According to learned counsel for the appellant the said documents could not have been produced by the appellant because of lack of knowledge as well as because of the reason that he was not properly advised. He also relied upon the injury report produced in the tribunal to show that the doctor advised X-ray and on next day i.e., on 13th June, 1995 itself in Government hospital he was X- rayed and there were fractures as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the appellant did not produce the said X-ray report before the tribunal and has submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC after inordinate delay. It is also submitted that there is maximum limit for grant of compensation in a case where grievous injury is caused as per the Schedule under Section 163A appended to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is true that appellant has produced the documents SBCMA No.1752/2006 Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 3 after delay but looking to the genuineness and credibility of the documents as issued by the Government Hospital, Pali, the delay in filing the application by the appellant cannot come in the way of the appellant particularly, in a case where the claimant is victim of accident and suffered fractures in both the hands. Therefore, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed and the documents are taken on record. So far as compensation is concerned, the appellant was granted total compensation of Rs.10,350/- only, but it is clear from the impugned award dated 25.4.1998 that the appellant has not been granted any compensation on account of his suffering grievous injury. As per Schedule, the appellant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury. In this case, the appellant suffered three fractures, two in one hand and one in another hand and one injury of dislocation. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case, appellant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- for each fracture amounting to Rs.15,000/-and Rs.2500/- for SBCMA No.1752/2006 Bhagwat Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 4 dislocation. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.17,500/-. The appellant shall also be entitled for interest on the @ 9% per annum from the date of award passed by the tribunal. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-