AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass
In this appeal, the injured in a road accident, seeks enhancement of compensation amount. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that though 65% disability has been assessed by the doctor, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000/- towards disability and it has no basis. Further,
under all other heads, only less compensation has been awarded.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the Doctor who issued the disability certificate has not
treated him. In the light of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal awarded him just compensation.
On 26.07.2001, the appellant had sustained injuries in the road accident. Then, he was 20 years old. He was a mason; but, the Tribunal made
him a cooli for want of evidence as to the occupation claimed by him. Medical records were marked. PW2 Dr.Thiyagarajan examined him and
issued Ex.P6 disability certificate determining his disability at 65%. The Tribunal neither rejected the certificate nor accepted it. But, stated that
PW2''s determination is not based on any scientific method and adopted a rough and ready method.
In the accident, the appellant had sustained fracture in his hip on both sides. There was malunion of fractured bone. PW2 deposed that in view
of the effect of injury, the appellant could not sit conveniently. There is also difficulty for him while walking and he also expressed pain. In the
circumstances, PW2 assessed his disability at 65%. Sometimes, the very doctor who has treated the injured, has no inclination to come to the
Tribunal to depose due to various reasons. It is not the rule of law the disability of the injured has to be determined only by the very same doctor
who had treated him. Suppose if the Doctor dies, the disability of the road accident injured cannot go away. The Orthopedic doctor should go
through the discharge summary, treatment record, recent X-ray, also examine the injured physically and taking note of all these aspects as well as
WHO guidelines, he has to assess the disability. This is what Pw2 has done. But, the Tribunal has not given any sound reason for not adverting to
Ex.P6. The appellant had sustained multiple injuries and due to the effect of the injuries even now he suffers. Thus, we accept the disability
determination of PW2.
Towards disability, the Tribunal had awarded him Rs. 40,000/-. In the light of the above and considering his then young age, we raise it to Rs.
75,000/-. Towards food and nutritious expenses, Rs. 2,000/- alone is granted. It is raised to Rs. 5,000/-. Towards loss of earning power Rs.
5,000/- was awarded. It is raised to 8,000/-, and towards Transportation expenses only Rs. 3000 was granted. It is raised to 5,000/-. Towards
loss of amenities, we award him Rs. 10,000/-.
P. Devadass, J.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Enhanced compensation of Rs. 53,000/-with interest at 7.5%p.a from the date of claim petition till
deposit is awarded. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount less amount already deposited within four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. No costs.