Mainoddin vs Mohender Singh and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J.

This appeal by the claimant under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act is against the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 413/2007 on the file of the MACT-VI, Bijapur, by judgment and award dated 14.08.2007.

It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 16.12.2006, he was returning from Pune to Bijapur in Jeep No. MVL-3407 along with others. At that time, a Truck bearing No. HR-55/B-6423 came from Bijapur side to go towards Solapur in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Jeep wherein the claimant was proceeding. On account of rash and negligent driving of the truck, all the inmates of the Jeep sustained injuries including the claimant. The claimant was treated in Civil Hospital, Bijapur. He had fracture of clavicle bone. He could not attend to his work on account of accidental injuries. He filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The claim petition was opposed by the insurer of the Truck. It came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal based on the evidence placed on record awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings and Rs. 40,000/- under all other heads. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal.

The claimant got himself examined as P.W. 1 apart from examining one Dr. A.A. Magi as P.W. 5. He produced wound certificate as per Ex. P5, disability certificate as per Ex. P14 and X-ray as per Ex. P15. Ex. P5 is the wound certificate issued by District Hospital, Bijapur, where he was taken immediately after the accident. It reveals that he had lacerated wound of 1/2 cm over the neck and left shoulder, lacerated wound of 1/2 cm over the left clavicle bone, abrasion 3 cm and swelling of the lumbar region. The X-ray of spine showed that there was no evidence of fracture. Whereas X-ray of chest discloses the fracture of left clavicle bone in its middle 1/3rd. The Doctor who issued wound certificate has opined that the said injury was grievous injury. The claimant has not produced any document for having taken treatment as inpatient in the said hospital. Though he has stated that he was treated in the Government Hospital, no record is forthcoming. He has examined Dr. A.A. Magi as P.W. 5 who in turn has spoken for having examined him in his clinic on 26.07.2008 for assessment of disability and found that he has suffered 20% to 25% permanent disability to the left upper limb. Admittedly, PW5 is also resident of Bijapur. The claimant was treated in District Hospital, Bijapur. There was no difficulty for him to examine the doctor who treated in District Hospital, Bijapur to speak about disability if at all suffered by him. It is said that there would be no disability in case of fracture of clavicle bone. It is also said that clavicle bone is an ornamental bone. Even then, Dr. A.A. Magi has spoken that he has suffered disability of 20% to 25% of left upper limb on account of fracture of clavicle bone. I am not inclined to give any evidential value to the evidence of P.W. 5 regarding disability spoken by him.

Thus, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head injury pain and sufferings as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not quantified the amount to be awarded under the various other heads such as medical expenses, loss of income during the period of treatment, attendant charges etc., However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the various heads. The Tribunal is expected to assign the reasons for awarding Rs. 40,000/- under the various heads. Admittedly, he was treated in Government Hospital. Though he has stated that he had also taken treatment from a private Doctor-P.W. 5, no material is forthcoming. As such, having regard to the nature of injury and that he was treated in Government Hospital, Bijapur, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under the head medical expenses taking into account that sometimes in Government Hospital the medicine is required to be purchased from outside.

Though the claimant has stated that he was working as driver, he has not produced the driving licence. As such, he has to be treated as coolie. Since the accident occurred in the Year 2006 and he was aged hardly 18 years, the Tribunal is right in taking monthly income as Rs. 3,000/-. On account of fracture of clavicle bone he must have been incapacitated from attending to his work for two months. Thereby, he lost income for a period of two months. So, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- is awarded under the head loss of income during the period of treatment. Further, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under the head attendant charges since he had fracture of clavicle bone. Further, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards conveyance charges and Rs. 2,000/- towards food and nourishment. Since he had fracture of clavicle bone, though he has not suffered disability on account of the said fracture, definitely it would cause little inconvenience compared to his right upper limb. To compensate the same, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head loss of amenities. There is no evidence to show that he has to undergo treatment in future regarding the fracture sustained by him. As such, the question of awarding any amount towards future medical expenses does not arise.

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the various heads as under:

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.