AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Maruti, the appellant, has challenged the legality of the award dated 06.06.2012, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & AMACT, Haveri, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.92,857/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation.
Briefly the facts of the case are that, on 26.12.2007, at 6.30 p.m., the appellant was going on his motorcycle from Mevundi to Hole-Itagi. At that time the respondent No.3, Channappa Puttappa Budihal, drove his tractor in such a rash and negligent manner, while coming from opposite side, that the tractor dashed against the motorcycle. Consequently, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Initially, he was treated at Guttal Hospital and thereafter at Davanagere Hospital. Eventually he was hospitalized in City Central Hospital, Davanagere, from 31.03.2008 to 14.04.2008. It is during this period that his right leg was amputated below knee. As an injured, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case, he examined himself as a witness, and submitted 159 documents. The Insurance Company also examined a single witness, and submitted a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, despite the fact that the appellant''s right leg had been amputated, despite the fact that the amputation has been noted in the Discharge Summary (Ex.P.6), dated 14.04.2008, the said fact has been ignored by the learned Tribunal. Instead the learned Tribunal has treated the case as merely a case of grievous injury. Therefore, the very basis for grant of compensation is highly misplaced.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Discharge Summary (Ex.P.6) has not been proven by any witness. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the said document.
In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did file an application for examining the Doctor from the hospital in order to prove the discharge summary. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant has been denied the right to produce a witness in order to prove the said document. He further submits that the appellant has not even be given an opportunity to establish the extent of disability suffered by him due to the amputation of the right leg.
Considering the fact that the factum of amputation of right leg, needs to be established by the appellant, considering the fact that the Discharge Summary, a document produced by the appellant, needs to be proved by the appellant, considering the fact that extent of disability is an essential factor to be considered while computing the amount of compensation, this Court remands the case back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to permit the appellant to produce his medical witness, to prove the Discharge Summary, and to establish the extent of disability suffered by him due to the amputation of his right leg.
The learned Tribunal is directed to record the evidence of the appellant''s witness within a period of six months. Parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal.
The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 23.01.2017.
Therefore, the award passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & AMACT, Haveri, in M.V.C. No. 295/2009, dated 06.06.2012, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back with the aforementioned direction.
Registry is directed to return the lower court records immediately to the concerned Tribunal.