13.The petitioner stated that due to the injuries suffered, he finds it difficult to carry on his day to day work and consequently he is suffering basic amenities of life. P.W.2 Doctor, who examined the petitioner and issued Ex.P7 disability certificate after analyzing Ex.P8 X-ray, deposed that on 10.03.2015 after examining the petitioner and taking Ex.P8 X- rays, he found that the thigh bone of the petitioner has malunited and due to that the functioning of petitioner's right thigh and right knee function is reduced. P.W.2 also stated that the petitioner will find it difficult to stand or walk for long time and he cannot sit down. Thus, P.W.2 stated that the petitioner has suffered 55% disability. It is clear from the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that due to the fracture and other grievous injuries suffered, the petitioner is finding it difficult to stand or walk for long time. As such, P.W.2 assessed the permanent disability at 55%. As stated earlier, there is no contra evidence on the side of the respondent. In such circumstances, keeping in mind the above said oral and documentary evidence on the side of the petitioner, it will appropriate to accept the disability assessed by P.W.2 Doctor. In the absence of any contra evidence. Further, the petitioner also relied upon the Ruling reported in 2017 (1) TNMAC 251, [P.Elangovan Vs. S.Murali and others] and 2013(2)TN MAC 669, [M.Thirunavukkarasu Vs. P.T.S.M.Dhasthagir and 2.National Insurance Company Ltd.,] in support of his contention. Following the above said ruling, the assessment of the disability by P.W.2 is to be accepted and accordingly the disability suffered by the petitioner is fixed at 55% instead of 40% fixed by the Tribunal.
