AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.R. Midha, J.—The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded to respondent No. 1.
The accident dated 20th � 21st January, 2005 resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was standing on the road when the offending vehicle hit him resulting in grievous injuries. Respondent No. 1 was a labourer carrying on the work of loading of tent goods. Respondent No. 1 was removed to Dr. Khan''s Rehan Hospital where he was hospitalized from 21st January, 2005 to 26th January, 2005. He was again admitted in Safdarjung Hospital from 26th January, 2005 to 3rd March, 2005. Respondent No. 1 suffered 15% disability of left lower limb. The disability certificate � Ex.PW1/5 was proved by respondent No. 1 in the witness box. Respondent No. 1 also placed on record a discharge summary � Ex.PW1/1 by Dr. Khan''s Rehan Hospital and discharge summary � Ex.PW1/2 issued by the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 also proved the medical record � Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. Respondent No. 1 spent Rs. 20,000/- on his treatment and Rs. 10,000/- on special diet but the bills were not produced.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- to respondent No. 1.
The sole ground of challenge in this appeal is that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant. I have examined the evidence and the documents on record of the learned Tribunal. Though respondent No. 1 has not placed on record the medical bills towards expenses incurred on the treatment and also the proof of expenditure on conveyance, considering that respondent No. 1 belongs to the lowest strata of the society and was a labourer working for loading of tents on the truck and it has been proved on record that he suffered 15% disability, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. I may record that if respondent No. 1 had been vigilant enough and had led proper evidence, he may have been entitled to the compensation for loss of income on the basis of the multiplier method. In the absence of the proper evidence, the learned Tribunal has drawn reasonable presumptions guided by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and I do not find any infirmity in the computation of compensation by the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
No costs.
The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant within two weeks.
CM No. 17212/2008
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 66 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 17211/2008
Dismissed.