K. Anthaiah vs G. Siddi Ram Reddy and Others

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Claims Tribunal by award and decree dated 24/2/2003 passed in OP. No. 126 of 2000 awarded compensation of Rs. 23,245/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Since the quantum alone is in question, there is no need to refer other aspects of this case.

The Claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and PW-2 Dr.B.Ramakrishna, who was working as Orthopaedic Surgeon in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, during the relevant period. According to PW-2, the claimant was admitted in Osmania General Hospital on 13/10/1999 with Grade-III B.Comp Commin Bimalleolar fracture left with lateral subluxation left ankle. So external fixation of left ankle was done and skin grafting with K-wire into left medial malleolus was done. The claimant was discharged on 19/11/1999. According to PW-2, the injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature. According to PW-2, the claimant is still having pain in the left ankle. There is stiffness in the left ankle, due to which, the claimant is complaining pain while walking, climbing stairs and squatting on the ground. PW-2 categorically deposed that movements of the left ankle are restricted. He assessed the disability at 30%. Ex.A-11 is the x-ray. According to PW-2, Exs.A-1 to A-8 and A10 are issued from his hospital. PW-2 admitted that Dr.B.S. Reddy, Head of Orthopaedic Unit treated the claimant and he was also working in the same hospital during the relevant period. The claimant deposed that soonafter the accident he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and he was treated as inpatient from 13/10/1999 to 19/11/1999. His further case is that evenafter discharge from Osmania General Hospital, he was taking treatment as out-patient for six months. His further case is that still he is having pain in the left ankle and as a result of which, he is unable to walk long distance, stand for a long time and squat on the ground. Admittedly the claimant has not obtained any disability certificate. In the absence of disability certificate what is to be seen is "whether the version of PW-2 is believable ?" "whether there is any corroborating evidence supporting the version of PW-2?". Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It shows external fixation of K.Wire in to left medial malleolus was done, skin grafting was also done. It also shows that the claimant sustained Grade-III compound comminuted fracture. He was advised on the date of discharge that he should not lift weights. It appears that there are no instructions issued to the doctors and to the hospitals to assess the disability on the date of discharge of the injured, particularly when there is fracture and when he is complaining pain on the date of discharge. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the doctors whether it is private or Government to assess the disability particularly with reference to the nature of work being done by the injured to enable the Claims Tribunal to assess the future loss of earnings. Unless there is proper assessment of disability, it will be very difficult to assess the loss of future earnings. Even other wise, the Claims Tribunal would get an opportunity to examine the claimant in the public court. The Claims Tribunal would also get an opportunity to refer the injured to the Medical Board. In all cases, where the injured has not secured the disability from the competent medical board and where the injured complains that he has sustained some disability and he is having some pain and he cannot work as previously, the Claims Tribunal must refer the claimant to the Medical Board for assessing the disability. It is obligatory on the Claims Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation. There is still illiteracy and ignorance in our country. Many people cannot afford to take proper treatment. Mere saying that the burden lies on the claimant is not sufficient. Of course, the initial burden lies on the claimant but when the claimant is poor, rustic villager and could not obtain disability certificate, the Claims Tribunal should see that disability is correctly assessed. Since the Tribunal have to award just and reasonable compensation, and since we are dealing with beneficial legislation, necessary steps have to be taken. It is the duty of every individual to see how the misery of victims is reduced. The procedure or technical aspect should not come in the way of rendering justice. In this case, the accident occurred on 13/10/1999, it may not be just and reasonable to remand the case at this stage to the Claims Tribunal for assessing the disability. In the circumstances, since the claimant is saying that there is no proper union of bones and there is stiffness in the legs, this court has verified the x-rays filed by the claimant. Fortunately the x-ray itself clearly reveals that there is malunion and there is no proper union of bones. The fracture is at left ankle and so in the above circumstances, the disability is estimated at 25% and the loss of earning is estimated at 25%.

According to claimant, he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month and he was paid batta Rs. 50/- per day. He was working as a cleaner. In the circumstances, the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month and 25% of the same comes to Rs. 750/- so only the loss of income comes to Rs. 750 x 12 =9000. The appropriate multiplier comes to 18. So the total loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,62,000/- [9000 x 18]. The claimant is awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards continuous disability. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,97,000/-. The claimant claimed Rs. 80,000/- only. However, in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , it is settled law that irrespective of the claim made by the claimant, the court should award just and reasonable compensation. The rate of interest shall be the same i.e., 9% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The appellant/claimant has to pay deficit court fee. Even other wise, the Claims Tribunal shall deduct the amount required for the purpose of paying court fee from the amount deposited by the Insurance Company and pay the remaining amount equally to the claimant.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in this civil miscellaneous appeal shall stand closed.