AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—Insurer has preferred appeal in M.F.A. No. 22400/2011 challenging the judgment and award dated 25.03.2011 in M.V.C. No. 291/2010 on the file of the Additional MACT & Fast Track Court - I, Koppal on the ground that there is no nexus between the accident and the injury sustained by the claimant -respondent.
Claimant has preferred M.F.A. No. 23052/2011 for enhancement.
Heard Shri Nagaraj C. Kolloori and Shri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the insurer and Shri Chandrashekar P. Patil for the claimant.
The incontrovertible facts in this case are, the claimant was hit by a motorcycle bearing No. KA-37/Q-8805 on 05.01.2010 at about 11:30 a.m. Claimant was initially examined in District Hospital, Koppal. On 12.01.2010, claimant got himself admitted in Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Medical Sciences and Hospital with a history of fall in his house. He underwent surgery and other medical treatment. He presented the instant petition claiming compensation contending that he had sustained injury in the road traffic accident. Petition was contested by the insurer. After trial, on consideration of material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the claimant had given the history of fall in his house, before SDM he may have sustained fracture on 05.01.2010 which may have aggravated the situation by 12.01.2010 resulting in his fall. By holding thus, Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-. Hence, the insurer preferred this appeal in M.F.A. No. 22400/2011.
At the outset, Shri Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently contended that a perusal of Ex. R-2 reveals that the claimant had gone to the SDM hospital with a history of fall in his house. Therefore, the fracture has no nexus with the accident which occurred on 05.01.2010. He submitted that if the application of the claimant is taken on its face value also it can be safely inferred that fracture has resulted due to the fall in the house. He also adverted to the 4th edition of a textbook of Orthopaedics and Traumatology by Mr. N. Natarajan and N. Mayilvahanan to contend that the clinical features in respect of fracture of neck of femur would not permit the injured to remain quite from 05.01.2010 to 12.01.2010.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant adverting to the Exs.P-2, P-4 and P-10 submitted that the accident had caused the injury sustained by the claimant. Claimant was in deep pain which is discernable from Ex. P-2 complaint lodged by his son, wherein the complainant has categorically stated that since his father was in pain, he was lodging the complaint in his own handwriting. Ex. P-4 wound certificate issued by the District Hospital, Koppal shows that injured was first seen on 05.01.2010 and the doctor had observed tenderness and restricted movements of hip joint. It is opined in the said certificate that the injury which is referred in the discharge summary of SDM Hospital i.e., fracture of neck of femur is grievous in nature. Ex. P-10 is the out patient slip dated 05.01.2010 which discloses that claimant was advised x-ray of right hip joint. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that a combined reading of these three documents would lead an inference that claimant had suffered fracture on 05.01.2010 itself. With these submissions supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, he prays for dismissing the appeal filed by the insurer and allowing his appeal for enhancement.
I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and perused the records.
Facts are not in dispute in this case. The only question that needs to be decided is as to whether the road traffic accident had any nexus with the injuries namely fracture of neck of femur for which he was treated in the medical college hospital. The medical evidence in this case is not specific. In the absence of specific medical opinion, it would not be possible to decide the issue one way or other. In the circumstances, in my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of examining the treating doctors so that the issue in controversy can be resolved. In the circumstances, I pass the following:
The appeal in M.F.A. No. 22400/2011 is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2011 in M.V.C. No. 291/2010 on the file of Addl. M.A.C.T. & Fast Track Court-I, Koppal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the jurisdictional Tribunal for recording medical evidence and to proceed therefrom to pass award after hearing the parties.
In view of the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2010, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Parties shall appear before the Tribunal without notice on 16.11.2015.
In view of the order in M.F.A. No. 22400/2011, the appeal in M.F.A. No. 23052/2011 does not survive for consideration and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
Registry is directed to send the lower Court records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.