AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice Subhash B. Adi
Since the liability of the insurer is not in dispute. notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. M.F.A.NO. 10844/2010 is by the insurer, questioning the quantum of compensation, whereas Cr.Ob.42/2011 is by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation for the injury suffered in a road accident that occurred on 7.1.2009.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,85,900/- with interest.
Claimant had suffered grievous injury of fracture of lateral condoyle femur with Type-VI. He was treated as inpatient from 7.1.2009 to 22.1.2009 and external fixation was done on 7.1.2009 arid another surgery was conducted for fracture of patella on 9.1.2009. He was again admitted on 18.5.2009 and discharged on 28.5.2009. Doctor has opined that there is 48% disability to the left lower limb and 24% to the whole body. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence of the Doctor and taken the salary of the claimant at Rs. 12,500/- per month based on the salary certificate Ex.P7.
Learned Counsel for the insurer seriously disputed as regard to the salary and also disputed as to the disability, as the claimant alleges, that he is a Computer Engineer and injury to the leg might not have any impact on his earning capacity as a Computer Engineer.
On the other hand learned counsel for the claimant submitted that, he has produced the documents Exs. P 48 to 51, however, those documents have not been referred.
As far as salary is concerned, the claimant''s employer is a private organization and in such cases, the corresponding documents, should have been produced to prove as to whether such a salary was paid to the claimant or not, not only on the basis of the voucher. In my opinion, when there are other documents produced and they having been not considered by the Tribunal, justice would be met, if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal.
Accordingly, M.F.A. No. 10844/2010 is allowed. The judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal as early as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with liberty to both the parties to lead evidence.
Cr.Ob.No.42/2011 is rejected. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant insurer.