AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The matter is listed for admission. Lower Court records are received. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
This is claimant''s appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Heard Smt. Sharadamba, learned Counsel for claimant and Sri M. Narayanappa learned Counsel for Insurance Company. I have been taken through evidence and impugned judgment.
On careful consideration of medical records, I find that there is ambiguity regarding the number and nature of injuries suffered by claimant The medical records and medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Basheer would disclose that claimant had suffered fractures of 5th to 9th ribs of the left side. I do not find corresponding entries in the case sheet and discharge summery. PW-2 has assessed permanent physical disability of left shoulder at 20% and 25% disability of the chest. FW-2 has not given disability certificate. His evidence is not corroborated by documentary evidence. The medical bills marked as Ex.P-4 issued by Mangala Hospital showing the treatment charges as sum of Rs. 50,065/- is not free from bogus entries The claimant had suffered fractures of (sic). The fractures were reduced by conservative method. Even then, a sum of Rs. 3,500/- is charged towards cost of implants and it is also seen from the medical bill that a sum of Rs. 3,500/- is charged as operation charges again a sum of Rs. 2,500/-is shown as suturing charges. The other items of treatment charges shown in the bill viz. towards consultation charges and sub consultation charges are duplicated to inflate medical expenditure.
The tribunal, without noticing these discrepancies has awarded compensation under following heads.
1) Pain and suffering
Rs. 45,000/-
2) Medical expenditure
Rs. 50,000/-
3) Loss of future income due to disability
Rs. 60,000/-
4) Loss of amenities
Rs. 20.000/-
The learned. Counsel for claimant submits that claimant was not awarded adequate compensation under the head ''loss of future earning capacity'' and he was not awarded compensation towards ''loss of earning during laid up period''. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 60.000/- towards ''loss of income'' though the evidence of PW-2 regarding assessment of disability suffers from various discrepancies and there is no documentary evidence to show that PW-2 had subsequently examined the claimant to assess disability, The tribunal without proper verification of the medical bill has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards ''medical expenses'', Thus, I find that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under these heads is on the higher side. This would take care of the deficiency caused due to omission of award of compensation towards ''loss of earning during laid up period''.
In view of the above discrepancies, I do not find any reasons to enhance compensation, In the result, appeal is dismissed.