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. 2,44,000/- has been awarded to respondents No. 1.
The accident dated 14th November, 1989 resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 40% to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is a constable who was on duty at the time of the accident. He was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle which was hit by the Government car. The claimant suffered fracture in the neck of right femur and was hospitalized.
The claimant remained on leave for 3 years, 6 months and 21 days. After adjusting available leave, Rs. 47,895/- was deducted from his salary and the claimant suffered loss of Rs. 16,064/- towards earned leave. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 64,000/- towards loss of salary and loss of earned leave on the basis of the evidence. Respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 1 lakh towards expenses on treatment but the medical bills were not produced on record. The learned Tribunal, therefore, drew presumption u/s 114 of the Evidence Act and awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards expenditure on medicines, Rs. 15,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance. Rs. 1 Lakh has been awarded for the permanent disability and Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering. In total Rs. 2,44,000/- has been awarded to the claimant.
The appellant has challenged the award on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is exorbitant and no amount should have been awarded for expenditure on treatment since no bills were produced.
Respondent No. 1 is a government employee working as constable. Respondent No. 1 was on duty when he was hit by the car resulting in 40% disability and he remained on leave for 3 years, 6 months and 21 days.
There is no merit in the appeal. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference in appeal. The learned Tribunal has drawn fair presumptions of expenditure on medicines, special diet and conveyance considering the 40% disability suffered by the claimant/respondent.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.