AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
Injured - claimant in MVC No. 541/2007 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Dharwad, sitting at Navalgund (Tribunal'' for short) has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 31.8.2010.
Heard Sri Hanamant R. Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.S. Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 - Insurer.
Sri Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Award has submitted that the Tribunal has not objectively considered the evidence of P.W.2 - Dr. Shrikanth S. Ramanagoudar, who has stated in his evidence that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability of 60%. He further submitted that Ex. P9 clearly indicates that claimant was an inpatient from 11.9.2007 to 8.10.2007 and 6.5.2008 to 12.5.2008. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the heads ''transportation'', ''food and nourishment'' ''attendant charges'' and ''pain and suffering'' are inadequate. He further submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding a global compensation instead of computing the compensation keeping in view the evidence of P.W.2. The claimant was aged 18 years at the time of accident and the injury would have seriously impact on his life. Accordingly, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the Insurer supporting the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal prayed for it''s dismissal.
During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on Exs. P9, 10 and the evidence of P.W.2. Exs. P9 and 10 is the Patient''s Discharge Card issued by KIMS Hospital, Hubli.
Ex. P9 refers to admission of the claimant in the hospital for the period from 11.9.2007 to 8.10.2007. A careful perusal of the said document indicates that the claimant was treated with a fracture above the knee and he was advised physiotherapy and regular dressing and care on cast. Ex. P10 though indicates admission on 6.5.2008 and discharge on 12.5.2008 refers to the old fracture. The examination findings refer to a scar over lateral aspect of lower thigh of the right knee and the treatment given therein is ''analgesics'' and ''physiotherapy''. Further advise is to continue physiotherapy. P.W.2 - Dr. Shrikanth S. Ramanagoudar, in his evidence, has stated that he has examined the claimant from 19.3.2010 to 21.8.2010 with a history of road traffic accident. He has stated that the claimant was unable to walk properly and unable to bear the weight and therefore he has assessed the permanent physical disability at 60%. P.W.2 has not treated the claimant but examined him after a lapse of about 2 1/2 years.
So far as the medical expenses are concerned, the total sum claimed by the claimant is Rs. 2,200/-.
Having analysed this evidence and keeping in view the material on record, the Tribunal has not accepted the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground that he had not treated the claimant and accordingly awarded a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of expected earnings in the form of global compensation.
Exs. P9 and P10 are issued by the KIMS Hospital, Hubli. There is no mention with regard to any disability. Ex. P9 makes it clear that the treatment given is ''Above Knee Cast''. Ex. P10 discloses that claimant was treated with only ''analgesics'' and ''physiotherapy''. Admittedly, the medical evidence of P.W.2 is based on Exs. P9 and P10. The assessment of 60% permanent disability is not supported by any material available in Exs. P9 and P10. Further, there is no description with regard to any corresponding injury to the knee or any assessment to support the 60% disability. In the circumstances, Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence of P.W.2 - Dr. Shrikanth S. Ramanagoudar. However, the claimant was an inpatient for nearly one month as per Ex. P9 and a cast was put above knee. Considering the length of treatment as an inpatient and the treatment undergone, in my considered view, the compensation awarded under the heads transportation, food and nourishment expenses and attendant charges, pain and sufferings require some enhancement and in my further considered opinion, a global sum of Rs. 25,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the appeal merits consideration and accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
"i) Appeal is allowed in part by awarding a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
ii) Respondent No. 2 -Insurer is directed to deposit the global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) Upon such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced compensation to the claimant."
No costs.