AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
Appellant impugns judgment dated 11.11.2019 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and compensation granted.
As per the claimant, the claimant along with his wife was going to Meerut from Ghaziabad in a Honda City car, which was being driven by the
claimant. When they reached Gangnehar Bridge, Murad Nagar, U.P the offending vehicle a bus came on the wrong side after jumping the divider and
struck the car of the claimant. Claimant sustained injuries and was removed to Jeevan Hospital & Stone Centre for treatment.
The offending vehicle is owned by the appellant Corporation and was being driven by respondent No.2, its driver.
The Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record has found that the offending vehicle i.e. the bus after hitting the divider on the road jumped on the
other side of the road and struck the car of the claimant which was coming on the other side of the road.
The mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles reflected that both vehicles were severally damaged from the front side indicating that there
was a head on collusion between both the vehicles.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the only issue being raised by the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation
taking the disability at 100% whereas there was no evidence on record qua the same.
Perusal of the record, filed by the appellant, shows that the wife of the claimant had appeared in the witness box and she had deposed that her
husband, the claimant had suffered 90% permanent disability both physically as well as mentally.
The claimant also examined two doctors, one Dr. Naresh Chandra who was a Specialist and Head of Department (Ortho), Guru Govind Singh
Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar as PW.2; who has deposed that the patient suffered post traumatic stiffness of right hip and knee joint and left
knee joint and suffered 67% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs. He has further deposed that during assessment patient was found
suffering from head injuries and was referred to Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital for assessment.
In cross examination the doctor has stated that the disability sustained by the patient/claimant is permanent in nature and not likely to improve.
The claimant also examined Dr. Yogesh Sharma, Senior Resident, Department of Neurology, Janakpuri Super Specialist Hospital, Janakpuri, New
Delhi as PW.3. The doctor has opined that he had personally examined the claimant in Neurology OPD and after reassessment in Board, patient was
found Post Traumatic Spastic Quadriparesis with Severe Cognitive deficit TRA-23/06/12 (SQ = 22) and he has suffered permanent 90% physical and
mental disability.
On account of the disability, patient suffered weakness and spasticity on all four limbs because of which patient lost flexibility to move his hands
and legs properly.
The doctor has opined that the patient had suffered mental disability and IQ was done from IHBAS and found SQ = 22, which is severe in nature
as per record of IHBAS. No cross examination was conducted of the said doctor.
The disability certificate was also produced by the claimants, which showed that the locomotor disability of both lower limbs was permanent and
assessed at 67%. The mental retardation, as certified by the disability certificate, with regard to all four limbs and brain and was assessed at 90%.
Since the disability certificate and the evidence on record establish that the permanent disability i.e. the mental retardation is at 90%, I find no
infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in holding the functional disability of the appellant at 100%.
The Tribunal has also referred to the medical record of the injured based on the CT Scan. The Tribunal has noticed that the opinion with regard to
the CT Scan of the head showed “ill-defined hypodense areas with patechial areas of haemorrhages seen in left temporal left occipital
lobes. Mild-subarachnoid Haemorrhages seen in convesity Sulci and left parieto-Tempral, Right Temporal Region, diffuse cerebral Edema.
Intro-ventricular bleed is seen in Right lateral ventricle, IIIrd ventricle, Cerebral aqueduct and left occipital horn. Liner and undislaced
fracture seen involving left petrous Temporal bone and sphenoid sinus with hemorrhagic fluid seen in sphenoid sinuses. CT Cervical spine
was done which showed Degenerative changes with mild diffuse disc bulge with small posterior end plate osteophytes, causing mild
narrowing of spinal canal at C4 and C5 level. Mild dependent posterior congestions of bilateral lungs seen, bilateral lungs otherwise
gmssly appears normal.â€
In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver as also the injury
sustained by the claimant.
I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is granted three weeks time to deposit the entire
awarded amount with the Tribunal. On deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount in terms of the scheme of disbursal as provided in the impugned
judgment.
Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.