AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. P. Mittal, J.—The Appellant suffered serious injuries i.e. fracture in both bones of his right leg and fracture of shaft femur of his left leg with extensive CLW and crush injury, the left leg above knee had to be amputated. Two wheeler No.DL-2S-F-2613 on which the Appellant was riding at the time of accident was badly damaged.
The Tribunal awarded the following amount of compensation: -
S. No.
Compensation Head
Amount ( Rs. )
1.
On account of expenses incurred on hospitalization, nursing, artificial limb, physiotherapy and medicines
2,22,314
2.
On account of conveyance
14,000
3.
Future conveyance
20,000
4.
Permanent disability
1,69,000
5.
Pain and suffering
70,000
TOTAL
4,95,314
The compensation of Rs. 4,95,314/- awarded by the Tribunal also carries interest @ 12% per annum.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that loss of earning capacity was wrongly determined by the Tribunal; no compensation for future treatment and maintenance of the artificial limb as provided by Endolite was granted by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Appellant urges that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards future conveyance was inadequate.
The learned counsel for the Respondent supports the award.
A sum of Rs. 2,22,314/- was awarded towards the treatment provision of artificial limb, physiotherapy and for the medicines purchased on the basis of the Bills produced by the Appellant.
A sum of Rs. 14,000/- was granted towards conveyance expenses for visiting Jaipur and for visiting doctors for consultation from time to time.
A sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- awarded towards loss of future earning was really the compensation towards loss of amenities in life in view of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, . No evidence was led by the Appellant to prove that he suffered the loss of earning capacity. The Appellant was a cloth merchant and had a shop. He had an artificial limb for which adequate compensation was provided. In the absence of any specific evidence that he was prevented from going to the shop and attending to the customers due to the nature of injuries suffered by him, the compensation for loss of earning capacity cannot be granted. The amount of Rs. 1,69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is taken towards loss of earning capacity, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life. The compensation of Rs. 70,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering considering the long duration of treatment of the Appellant was just and fair.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the artificial limb purchased from Endolite require its maintenance from time to time. No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for this. It is submitted that considering the nature of injuries some provision ought to have been made for the expenses which will be incurred on physiotherapy in the future.
In fact the Appellant did not bring any evidence to prove that the artificial limb was required to be maintained, periodically. Perhaps, the same was not in the knowledge of the Appellant. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant produced before me a bill for Rs. 7,500/- paid to Endolite India Ltd. for repair/ maintenance of the artificial limb.
In my view, although no evidence was produced by the Appellant in this regard; he needed to be compensated as the artificial limb would require maintenance from time to time. The Appellant would have also needed physiotherapy after the amputation of the left leg. In the circumstances, I would award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards maintenance of the artificial limb and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards future physiotherapy.
Since, these were future expenses and one bill for the year 2003 (after filing of the appeal) has been placed on record. The Appellant would be entitled to interest for a period of 8 years during the pendency of the appeal @ 7.5% per annum till the date of payment.
The enhanced amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum for a period of 8 years till the date of this award and hereafter till the date of payment, shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within 30 days, which shall be released to the Appellant immediately.
The Appeal is allowed in above terms.