Mallappa vs Lokesh

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Learned Government Pleader states that needful will be done during the course of the day.

There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 1/2012 is allowed.

The appeal coming on for orders on the application for condonation of delay and the same having been condoned and the Government Pleader having been directed to take notice who undertakes to file his memo of appearance during the course of the day, the appeal is considered for final disposal. The present appellant was the petitioner in MVC No. 100/2010 which was decided along with another petition. It is found that the appellant had suffered eight injuries in road accident which are as follows:

(1) Abrasion and open wound over right elbow joint meg. 1 x 2 inches. (2) abrasion dorsal aspect of right foot base loser 3 toes 4 x 4 cm (3) Abrasion dorsal aspect of right hand, base of middle and index finger 2 x 2 cms (4) CT breum-mild diffuse cerebral edge (5) pneumo peritonerem (6) CT abdegre bavel walltear 2nd part of duodernum (7) X-ray spine antener ledge commurition of T-12 vertebra (8) X-ray pelvis fracture right iliac bone extending to untioular surface of autobelal margin.

The Tribunal in considering the case of the appellant for compensation under several heads, has denied compensation towards loss of future earning capacity on the footing that though it was claimed by the appellant that he was disabled and though the doctor was examined in support of his case namely PW-3, it was a fact that no disability certificate had been produced. Therefore, the Tribunal has not ventured to consider the alleged disability of the appellant. Since it is also on record that, out of the eight injuries suffered by the appellant, injury Nos. 4 to 8 were considered to be grievous in nature, it cannot be ignored that the appellant may have been left with certain disabilities. However, if the appellant does in fact suffer from disability, it would be sheer injustice to deny the compensation to which he may be justly entitled. The non-production of a disability certificate may be attributed to the negligent manner in which the case may have been conducted by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant ought not to be denied compensation if he is suffering from disability. It would hence be required to assess disability, if any, from which the appellant suffers and if indeed there is an extent of disability, it would be necessary for the Tribunal to reconsider the head of loss of future earning capacity on account of the disability and to grant an appropriate amount of compensation under the said head, while also reconsidering other heads of compensation which appear to be on the lower side. Primarily it has to consider the compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Thus, the matter requires to be remanded in the opinion of this Court. Therefore the appellant is directed to appear before a competent medical practitioner at his expenditure and to obtain a certificate regarding his alleged disability, on examination by a competent specialist of the District Hospital, Raichur and shall produce the same before the Tribunal, which shall reconsider the matter on such production after issuing notice to the appellant and shall address the matter as directed above. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part in terms of the above directions and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.