AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—Though these matters are listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
While MFA No. 31472/2010 is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, in the other appeal, the Corporation has challenged the quantum of compensation granted to the respondent for the said injuries.
The facts reveal that on 04.08.2007 while PW. 1 Buddesab was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA. 28/F-1326, an accident occurred and he suffered injuries. He was treated in the hospital. He is said to have suffered disability and therefore, made a claim for compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony, medical expenses etc.
He was examined as PW 1 and the doctor as PW 2. In their evidence Ex. P-1 to P-21 were marked. On behalf of Corporation RW 1 was examined.
The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record granted a sum of Rs. 69,400/- as compensation on all the heads with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted, the injured is in appeal in MFA No. 31472/2010, whereas the other appeal is filed by the Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation granted.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The point that arise for my consideration is,
Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal needs any variation? If so, to what extent?
Sri Shivashankar Manur, learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that the injured had not suffered any fracture and the grant of compensation for grievous injuries is impermissible. It is also his submission that the injured has not suffered any disability and therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant compensation without any basis. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded is meager and it needs enhancement.
Perusal of the injury certificate Ex. P-5 reveals (1) Contused lacerated wound at the forehead above the nasal bridge measuring 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms. It is certified to be a simple injury. Certificate is issued by the Medical officer, Primary Health Centre at Babalesnwar. Perusal of this certificate does not reveal any fracture of the nasal bone. He has examined PW 2, the doctor who assessed the disability and PW 2 has issued disability certificate at Ex. P-9 and at that time X-ray was taken and it revealed that there was malunion of fracture of nasal bone. Ex. P-10 is the X-ray report. It reveals old fracture nasal bone healed with deformity. The claimant has also produced the X-ray film at Ex. P-12. On examination, the assessment of the disability is done by the doctor on 29.03.2010 i.e., after about 2 1/2 years of the accident. In fact the claimant has not produced any document regarding treatment of the fracture immediately after the accident. No X-ray reports are made available. It is for this reason, the learned counsel for the Corporation contends that the claimant has suppressed the document relating to the fracture. Hence, he submits that in the absence of evidence, compensation and disability cannot be assessed.
It is relevant to note that PW. 1, the claimant in his chief-examination states that the records relating to his treatment of fracture were in the house and due to heavy rain as the house collapsed, all the documents have been destroyed. This fact stated by PW. 1 in the chief-examination is not disputed in the cross-examination and therefore as the claimant stated the reason for non-production of the documents, which is not disputed in the cross-examination, the reason put forth has to be accepted and absence of documents cannot be doubted. The evidence of PW. 2 relating to the fracture has to be accepted.
The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the claimant has suffered the fracture of nasal bone and other simple injuries through the laceration, I think, it would be just and proper to grant sum of Rs. 20,000/- on this head.
Only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been granted towards the medical expenses and it is just and proper to grant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on this head.
So far as the disability is concerned, except the evidence of PW. 2- the doctor who never treated the claimant, no other material is placed on record. PW. 2 for the first time after two and half years, examined the claimant for assessing the disability. There is only a fracture of the nasal bone. Though there is mal-union, the causes, which have been put forth in the disability certificate is not substantiated by acceptable material. There is no evidence connecting the problems suffered by the claimant with the fracture that he suffered in the accident. Anyhow, PW. 2 has stated that the claimant has suffered loss of sense of smell and therefore, at the most the claimant is entitled to the compensation towards the loss of amenities. As the claimant has lost his power of smell, I think, it would be just and proper to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on this head.
As there is no consistent and cogent evidence regarding the loss of future earnings, the claimant is not entitled to the compensation on this head.
The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Taking into consideration that two months is required for healing the fracture and to resume the normal duties, assessing his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards the loss of income during the period of treatment.
Thereby, the net compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs. 49,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. The assessment of compensation at Rs. 69,400/- by the Tribunal is exorbitant and unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award needs modification.
Hence, the point is answered in affirmative. Accordingly, MFA No. 31472/2010 filed by the claimant is dismissed. MFA No. 31897/2010 filed by the Corporation is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award are modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 49,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal and after payment of the compensation to the claimant, excess if any, shall be paid to the Corporation.