Tatikonda Somi Reddy vs Banothu Venkanna and Others

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Claims Tribunal by award and decree dated 03/1/2005 passed in O.P. No. 733 of 2004 awarded compensation of Rs. 34,000/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, is under challenge in this appeal.

Since the quantum alone is in question, there is no need to refer other aspects of this case.

The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and he has examined PW-2 Dr. B. Sugunakar Reddy and marked Ex. A-1 certified copy of FIR, Ex. A-2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex. A-3 medical certificate, Ex. A-4 discharge summary and Ex. A-5 bunch Of medical bills amounting to Rs. 30,000/-. None was examined on behalf of respondents but Ex. B-1 copy of Insurance Policy was marked.

On perusal of the judgment of Claims Tribunal, it appears that unfortunately the Claims Tribunal has not discussed the evidence of doctor. It was obligatory on the part of Claims Tribunal to examine the entire evidence adduced before it. According to PW-2 Dr. B. Sugunakar Reddy, who is working as Plastic Surgeon in Yashoda Hospital. Claimant was admitted on 11/2/2002 with right hand injury and he had compound palmar dislocation of 2nd, 3rd and 4th metacarop phalangeal joints right hand fracture proximal phalax [PPX] right little finger. PW-2 further deposed that the claimant was operated on 11/2/2002 and was discharged on 14/2/2002 and he came up for review as an outpatient on 21/2/2002. PW-2 categorically deposed that there is stiffness of right hand and it is difficult for him to carry out his profession. Ex. A-4 is the discharge summary. According to PW-2, the claimant needs further operation for improvement of right hand function and approximately it may likely to cost Rs. 25,000/-. The claimant filed medical bills for Rs. 23,661/-.

According to claimant, due to fracture of right hand, he is not in a position to attend agricultural work, his right hand fingers are not functioning properly. Admittedly the claimant has not obtained any disability certificate. Merely because the claimant has not obtained disability certificate whether his case has to be rejected. In the absence of disability certificate what is to be seen is "whether the version of PW-2 is believeable?" "whether there is any corroborating evidence supporting the version of PW-2?". Ex. A4 is the discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospital. It appears that no instructions have been issued to the doctors and to the hospitals to assess the disability on the date of discharge of the injured particularly when there is fracture and when the injured is complaining pain on the date of discharge, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the doctors whether it is private or Government to assess the disability particularly with reference to the nature of work being done by the injured to enable the Claims Tribunal to assess the future loss of earnings. Unless there is proper assessment of disability, it will be very difficult to assess the loss of future earnings. Even other wise, the Claims Tribunal would get an opportunity to examine the claimant in the public court. The Claims Tribunal would also get an opportunity to refer the injured to the Medical Board. In all cases, where the injured has not secured the disability from the competent medical board and where the injured complains that he has sustained some disability and he is having some pain and he cannot work as previously, the Claims Tribunal must refer the claimant [s] to the Medical Board for assessing the disability. It is obligatory on the part of Claims Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation. There is still illiteracy and ignorance in this country. Many people do. not afford and cannot afford to take proper treatment from private hospitals. There are no sufficient Government Hospitals and there are no proper facilities in Government Hospitals. Mere saying that the burden lies on the claimant is not sufficient. Of course, the initial burden lies on the claimant, but whether the claimant is a poor rustic villager and could not take proper treatment and could not obtain disability certificate, the Claims Tribunal cannot say that it has no responsibility, ultimately it is the Tribunal, which has to see that just and reasonable compensation is ultimately awarded to the claimant.

In this case, the accident occurred on 11/2/2002, it may not be just and reasonable to remand the case at this stage to the Claims Tribunal for assessing the disability. It may not be reasonable to now direct the Claimant to be examined by the Medical Board. In the circumstances, since the claimant is saying that there is stiffness in the right hand fingers, this court has verified the medical record filed by the claimant.. The fracture is compound palmar dislocation of 2nd 3rd and 4th metacarop phalangeal joints right hand fracture Proximal Phalax [PPX] right little finger and so in the above circumstance''s, the disability is estimated at 25% and the loss of earning is estimated at 25%.

It is settled law that irrespective of the claim made by the claimant, the court can award just and reasonable compensation following the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, . In this case, the claimant was doing agricultural work, therefore, the loss of earnings are estimated at Rs. 3000/- per month and as per disability the loss of earnings would come to Rs. 750/- and annual loss of earnings comes to Rs. 9000/- = [750 x 12]. The appropriate multiplier is 16. So the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 1,44,000/- i.e., 9000 x 16. In the circumstances, I consider just and reasonable to award Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 30,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges, transport charges and other miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,14,000/-. The rate of interest shall be the same i.e., 9% per annum as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The appellant/claimant has to pay deficit court fee. Even other wise, the Claims Tribunal shall deduct the amount required for the purpose of paying court-fee from the amount deposited by the Insurance Company and pay the remaining amount to the claimant.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in this civil miscellaneous appeal shall stand closed.