HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 1172 of 2005 Dated: 22.04.2014 Between:
K.S.Jagadeesh And S.Syed and another …..Appellant ....Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 1172 of 2005 JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the award dated 24.04.2014 passed in M.V.P.No.370 of 2012 by the M.A.C.T.-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, the claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 26.02.2002 at about 9.30 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding from his house to I.T.I. Chittoor on his cycle and reached I.T.I. main gate, a lorry bearing No. AAC 5330 came from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle, as a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, the claimant was admitted as inpatient in the Government Hospital at Chittoor and from there he was shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. The Police registered a case against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, he had taken treatment for about one month and he was advised to take bed rest for another three months.
4. The claimant was pursuing I.T.I. His case is that after the accident, he is unable to sit and getting pain at his waist portion. It is also his case that while studying, he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by selling lemons and due to accident, he has spent Rs.22,000/- towards medicines. Initially, the Tribunal passed award on 29.06.2004 granting compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred appeal before this Court and this Court, by order dated 16.11.2004 in M.A.C.M.A.No.3726 of 2014, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration. The main reason for remanding the matter appears to be to enable the petitioner to examine doctors. After remand, the petitioner examined PWs.3 to 5. The Tribunal passed impugned award on 24.02.2005 reducing the compensation to Rs.28,520/-.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner sustained disability and is unable to sit longer time, the Tribunal has not considered the medical evidence properly. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and other heads.
6. In spite of service of notice, the 2nd respondent was absent. The appeal was dismissed against respondent No.1 for default. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle.
7. In case of injuries, the doctors, who examine the patient, even after completion of the treatment can express their opinion with regard to the disability, particularly with reference to the nature of treatment being given to the injured.
8. In this case, the claimant was aged about 17 years as on the date of accident. He met with an accident on 26.02.2002. According to PW.3-Dr.U.H.Zareena, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Chittoor, she examined the claimant and found pain and tenderness over both the hips of pelvic bones and lumbar region. She has taken X-ray – Ex.X-1 and found superior and inferior pubic rami fracture on right side with fracture inferior pubic rami left with displacement and minimal wedging of Lumbar 1 and Lumbar 2. She issued Ex.X3- wound certificate. She opined that the injury was grievous in nature and that it is the case of intra-abdominal trauma deserved to be shifted to higher institute for expert treatment. Ex.X-2 is the case sheet pertaining to the injured. PW-5 is a tutor in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore. He deposed that on 26.02.2002 the claimant was admitted in their hospital with pelvic fracture. Ex.X.6 is the wound certificate. According to the claimant, he is still getting pain and unable to sit for longer time. No suggestion was given to PW-1 that he is not getting pain at his waist portion, as such he is unable to sit for longer time. Thus, during trial the evidence of PW-1 is not disputed. When a version of witness is not in dispute, the question of producing further evidence does not arise. Therefore, even if there is no medical evidence to show that the injured is unable to sit for longer time and still he is getting pain, the same remains undisputed even in the absence of any further medical evidence. As far as sustaining of fracture to pelvic bones is concerned, the same is proved by the evidence of doctors. The claimant has also filed x- ray in support of his case. The claimant was admitted in Government Hospital on 26.02.2002 and was discharged on the same day.
9. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by him, the injured is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transport and other miscellaneous expenditure. As far as the medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,520/-., which is just and necessary.
10. According to the claimant, he could not attend any duties for about three months. The version of the claimant that he was also doing business and earning Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month, cannot be brushed aside. It appears that four months the claimant could not do any work, therefore, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,000/- x 4 = 12,000/-.
11. With regard to the disability said to have been sustained by the claimant, he did not put necessary efforts to prove the same. Unfortunately, in this case, though two doctors were examined, no question was asked with regard to the disability sustained by the claimant. In fact, the petitioner should have been sent to the Medical Board for assessing the percentage of disability sustained by him. Even if the claimant did not take any such steps, the Tribunal should observe the medical records and when it has come on record that the claimant has sustained grievous injury and fracture and he complains pain and some discomfort and that he is unable to discharge the duties, the Tribunal must refer such injured person to the Government Hospitals or to the Medical Board for assessing the disability. Except the assertion of the claimant that he is facing difficulty in discharging his duties, he has not taken any steps in that regard or merely on the ground that the doctor who examined the injured did not assess the disability, the Tribunal should not likely dismiss the claim of the injured person. May be due to various reasons such as ignorance, poverty and other circumstances, the claimant could not have got himself examined by the Medical Board. In many cases, due to far distance from their native place or expensive treatment beyond their capacity, the injured persons could not take the required treatment.
12. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, particularly the fracture to the pelvic bone, and the treatment undergone by the injuries/claimant, it is just and reasonable to grant future prospects at the rate of 10% over and above the monthly income of the injured and the same comes to Rs.300/- (Rs.3,000 x 10%). In this case, as the appropriate multiplier is ‘18’, the future prospects comes to Rs.3,300/- X 18= 59,400/-.
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.28,520/- to Rs.1,19,920/- ( Rs.59,400 + 20,000 + 5,000 + 5000 + 5,000/- + 13,520/- + 12,000/-), which is rounded off to Rs.1,20,000/-, and the interest rate is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
14. With the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J 22nd April 2014. mar