5.On a perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that in order to prove the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, one Dr.Ravindran was examined as P.W.3 on the side of the claimant. P.W.3-Doctor had adduced evidence to the effect that on account of the accident, petitioner had sustained fracture on his left leg. The disability suffered by the victim was assessed at 25%. Disability certificate issued by the P.W.3-Doctor was marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex-ray was marked as Ex.P.10. But, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on a finding that the claimant has not produced the wound certificate issued by the Villupuram Government Hospital and in the absence of such wound certificate, the disability certificate issued by P.W.3, cannot be accepted. But, in the considered opinion of this Court, when the claimant had produced the disability certificate issued by the Doctor-P.W.3, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and awarded just and proper compensation, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor. Moreover, in the cross-examination of P.W.3, no reply in favour to the case of the Insurance Company was brought out. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation.
