AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order rendered by the learned Tribunal on 30.6.2009, hence are being taken up together for adjudication.
Having heard learned Counsel of both the parties, it is evident that the accident occurred on 12.4.2008 at around 2 PM when jeep no. UA03/3369, which was being plied on the serpentine hilly roads of Lohaghat, District Champawat, somehow met with accident and as a consequence, Puskar Nath Goswami, aged about 45 years, became seriously injured. He was immediately taken to Community Health Centre, Lohaghat and thereafter he was referred to higher medical centre at Haldwani where he undergone fairly long treatment after availing the leave of 133 days from the teaching department in the State Government because Mr. Goswami happened to be a teacher and as such he is still working with the Government. After the medical discharge, he was declared 20 per cent disabled. So, the concerned department of the Government has assigned suitable/proper duties which could be performed by Mr. Goswami in the same pay structure.
Mr. Goswami presented a claim petition no. 1/2009 claiming Rs. 7,45,000/-, whereagainst the learned Tribunal granted him Rs. 1,55,635/-. Out of this total amount so awarded, Rs. 50,635/- are for the proved medical bills; Rs. 5,000/- are for travelling to Haldwani and rupees one lakh in lump sum have been awarded for the pain and suffering as well as the disability which has been caused due to such accident.
It has been argued that nothing has been awarded towards the dressing, while the PW2 Hari Om Saini, P.R.O. in the Krishna Hospital, Haldwani has proved the receipt of Rs. 21,000/- towards dressing.
I am unable to agree with the above contention because in such matters, exorbitant bills are prepared by the beneficiary. If a P.R.O. of a particular nursing home has proved the receipt of the money to the tune of Rs. 21,000/-, to my opinion, that should not be paid because the claimant has already been paid enough towards the medical bills and even for the travelling which he under went on account of the accident. There cannot be straight jacket formula in these matters to award the compensation. It is granted just on estimation and the learned Tribunal has already taken care of such factor while awarding
rupees one lakh towards the pain and suffering and disability.
It is pertinent to note that the claimant Mr. Goswami is a teacher, still serving with the Government. He certainly would have availed the medical leave of 133 days wherefor he received the salary. Therefore, granting compensation in such matters cannot be and should not be taken as a windfall or largesse exigible from the government exchequer.
I think rupees one lakh is proper compensation which has been granted by the Tribunal. There is no force in both these appeals. These are hereby dismissed.
Let the LCR be sent back.