HALASHI Vs. H.S. CHIKKANNA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Petitioner is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted to him by the Tribunal in MVC 977 of 1992.

(2.) THE accident occurred on 23.6.1992 at 11.10 a.m. between motor cycle and lorry bearing registration No. CAW 3281 and the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was treated in the District Hospital Chitradurga. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ - under three heads, namely, Rs. 30,000/ - for medical expenses; loss of income of Rs. 1,50,000/ -; and pain and suffering and disability at Rs. 70,000/ -. The Tribunal has chosen to grant a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - towards medical expenses; Rs. 5,000/ - for future medical expenses; Rs. 10,000/ - towards expenses incurred by the Petitioner for his relatives to attend the hospital; Rs. 20,000/ - for disability and Rs. 42,000/ - towards injuries.

(3.) IT is seen from the claim petition that the damages claimed under three heads mentioned supra, but the Tribunal which decided the issues did not consider the claim made in the petition and has gone on tangent. In my opinion, when a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - alone is claimed, how the Tribunal could give Rs. 60,000/ - is not explained. In fact the Tribunal has observed while granting compensation in respect of disability that "some what based upon some conjectures and surmises, but it is inevitable in such a case." Probably he has applied the same principle in respect of medical expenses which is said to have been really incurred. There is no clear finding rendered by the Tribunal explaining the nexus between the claim made under the petition and the grant made. Admittedly, there is no amendment of the petition till now. The learned Counsel for the appellant however submitted that under column 20(1) the form prescribed for filing a claim; the claim has to simply mention the total amount without giving particulars and the particulars given only as a guiding factor. But in the case I find that in Col. 21, Rs. 2,50,000/ - is made under all heads of damages. In fact towards the end of para 3 of the petition, the appellant himself mentioned "Hence the Petitioner claims the compensation under the following heads:"