AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, heard and finally disposed of.
The Award dated 6.2.2007 passed by the MACT, Mandya in MVC No. 2039/2005 is challenged in this appeal. Appellant''s counsel submits that the claimant sustained injury on 4.5.2001 while he was travelling in maxi cab No. KA.11-2772 with his father from Halebudanur to Maddur. It is submitted that in view of the accident, the petitioner, sustained fracture of Right Fumuer Subtrochanteric type and he was treated conservatively and underwent on operation on 23.5.2001 wherein intramediillary rod was inserted and he was discharged on 18.6.2001 and he was advised to come for follow up treatment. The Doctor was examined as PW.2 He further stated in his affidavit that he treated the patient again in the year 2006 and the patient complained the pain of right thigh and lower limb, deformity, inability to sit or squat for long time. On examination he found healed sear over right thigh, deformity of right thigh were present, shortening of right lower limb about 3 inches, difficulty in sitting and squatting and attending to nature call and X-ray taken showed malunion of right thigh femur with anagulation.
The injured is basically a blind person. PW.1 who is the father of the injured in his affidavit has stated that though he was a student in the blind school, he was attending to all his needs independently and confidently. He was playing flute and repairing and wiring the chairs and was participating in the cultural activities in the school. By attending to repairing works he was earning about Rs. 2500/- p.m. In view of the accident, all his activities has been stopped. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits in view 01 evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the injured has sustained disability of 100% and the same has to be suitably compensated.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in support of the income proof, the claimant has not produced any materials and also no independent witnesses have been examined. At the time of accident, he was student, hence the question of income does not arise since he failed to prove the same. The question of granting compensation under future loss of income would not arise. Utmost a little enhancement could be made in respect of loss of amenities. Accordingly, he submitted to dismiss the appeal.
I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents.
In view of the submissions made by the parties, I have gone through the evidence of PW.1 and 2. PW.1, the father of the claimant has categorically stated that the claimant was earning Rs. 2500/- by repairing and wiring chairs but no proof has been produced in that regard. But that does not mean that the injured was not drawing any amount. A blind person who was trained in wiring work of the chairs would definitely earn some amount. He was aged about 19 years. Even if the minimum wages is awarded under the Minimum Wages Act he might have earned Rs. 2800/- p.m. but since he has declared in the claim petition that he was getting Rs. 2500/- as income the same amount has to be taken. He was an intelligent student, he was playing flute and was participating in cultural activities and in this regard he has secured many prizes.
PW.1 in his evidence further deposes that basically the injured is blind, he was an intelligent student and in view of the accident he cannot lead his normal life as before. He cannot sit and squat and cannot attend nature call. As per the doctor''s evidence it fortifies the statement of PW.1 that the injured has suffered healed scar over right thigh, deformity of right thigh, shortening of right lower limb about 3 inches, difficulty in sitting and squatting and attending to nature call and malunion of right thigh femur with anagulation. Considering all these aspects, I decide to enhance the compensation to the injured suitably.
In respect of pain and fracture injury Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded. Though the said amount is reasonable, considering the subsequent operation and removal implants, another Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the said head. In respect of loss of future income, nothing has been awarded, hence the appellant is entitled to Rs. 86.400/- (2500 X 12 X 16 X 18/100). Under the head loss of amenities the claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs. 35,000/- Under the head food, diet and attendant charges the claimant is entitled for another Rs. 7500/-.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and Award is modified. The appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 1,38,900/- which shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of petition till payment.