AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1301/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, MACT, Shimoga ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the granting of global compensation of Rs.70,000/-.
The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant met with an accident on 11.08.2010 at about 12.00 p.m. and sustained the injuries. In order to
claim the compensation, the claimant replied upon the wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.5. On perusal of the material on record, after the
accident, the claimant was immediately taken to the General Hospital, Tarikere. A perusal of the wound certificate issued by the General Hospital,
Tarikere discloses that the claimant sustained three grievous injuries and x-ray was taken and it confirms the fracture of great toe with comunital
fracture of 1st meta tarsal with neck of second and third meta tarsal with distal end of right radius and the doctor has opined that injury Nos.1 to 3 are
grievous in nature. However, the claimant has not produced any documents for having taken the treatment as inpatient. The Tribunal in the absence of
the evidence of the doctor and also considering the wound certificate, particularly the three grievous injuries with fracture, awarded global
compensation of Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The learned
counsel would contend that since the claimant has failed to produce any medical evidence before the Tribunal such as prescriptions issued by the
doctor, medical bills, discharge summary or OPD slips, the question of awarding global compensation of Rs.70,000/- does not arise and the Tribunal
committed an error in awarding the global compensation. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to (c) would submit that the Tribunal in paragraph No.11 of its judgment while answering
issue No.2 considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and also taken note of the wound certificate wherein it is mentioned that the
injuries sustained by the claimant are three grievous injuries with fracture and rightly awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/-. Hence, it does not require
interference of this Court.
Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to (c), the point that arise for
the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the global compensation of Rs.70,000/- taking note of the nature of injuries mentioned in
the wound certificate at Ex.P.5?
Having considered the material available on record, particularly the wound certificate produced before the Tribunal, it clearly discloses that the
accident occurred on 11.08.2010 at 11.30 a.m. and the history is mentioned as road traffic accident by bus and immediately she was taken to the
hospital at 12.00 noon within half an hour of the accident. The doctor has noticed three injuries which are grievous in nature and also fracture. When
the claimant has sustained three injuries which are grievous in nature and suffered fracture including fracture of great toe with comunital fracture of
1st meta tarsal with neck of second and third meta tarsal with distal end of right radius, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding
global compensation. The injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature and she is also an illiterate and not produced the discharge summary
and the same can be seen from the claim petition. Under these circumstances, the non-filing of the other hospital records cannot be a ground to
interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered Ex.P.5 wound certificate and three grievous injuries with fracture. No doubt, the
Tribunal has not assessed the compensation under different heads and the question of assessing the compensation under different heads does not
arise, for the reason that the doctor has not been examined and also disability has not been proved by examining the doctor. Under these
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.