High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 06 KAR CK 0020

D. Kumar vs The Managing Director

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 7 June 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A. No. 14867 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 629 words

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No. 3984/2002 dated 23.01.2006 on the file of the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.

2.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the nature of injury sustained by way of an accident is that even today he is getting pain, out of which puss is discharging and he is unable to stand and he cannot attend all his daily works. There is a shortening of left limb of 1.5 cms.

3.

The global compensation has been awarded only on the certificate placed as per Ex.P7-OP Card, Ex.PS-Discharge summary and Ex.P10-Medical bills & Prescriptions.

4.

The claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him. It is submitted that in view of the nature of injury and also the puss formation, the doctor has advised him for amputation of his leg.

5.

The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that since he has not examined the doctor who treated him, the Court has granted the compensation globally. In order to assess nature of injury, I have referred the case to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital by the order dated 31.05.2010. Pursuant to the same the said hospital in its letter No. B&LCH/PS/78/10-11 dated 02.06.2010 addressed to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, Bangalore, it is stated that, in view of the direction 3 doctors committee has been constituted. One Doctor is a Senior Resident, Department of Radio diagnosis, another one is Associate Professor Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedics and another one is Professor of Surgery. Department of surgery. It is found from the letter that:

on examination there is a chronic discharging sinus in the lower end of the lateral aspect of the left thigh. The hone is irregular, thickened and tender. The left knee joint is irregular and there is bony ankylosis with no movements at the left knee joint. The pain is suffering from Chronic resistant Osteomyelitis of lower end of left femur with bony ankylosis of the left knee joint with a persistent discharging sinus on the lateral aspect of the thigh.

6.

The Committee of the doctors has stated in respect of the amputation as follows:

Repeat debridement of the sinus, curettage of osteomyelitis and treatment of infection by long term antibiotics. However the infection in the bone is very resistant to treatment and it may recur further necessitating the same management every time. The knee joint is ankylosed and it is difficult to get back the movements even though a joint replacement is done, in case the infection is totally cured, which is a difficult question to answer.

7.

Though the doctor not expressed that amputation is a must, but from the nature of injury there is a possibility of amputation also. Though the doctor has not been examined before the MACT, but in view of the medical report received by the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospitals by the 3 doctors committee, it is sufficient to enhance the compensation by Rs. 2 lakhs globally. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The appellant is entitled for an additional global compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal + Rs. 2,00,000/- now enhanced). The total compensation awarded is Rs. 2,35,000/- and it is made clear that Rs. 1,50,000/- will have to be kept fixed deposit for a period of 10 years and thereafter after completion of 10 years without awaiting for any order from this Court, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the periodical interest on the fixed deposit