SUSHEELA POOJARTHY Vs. DURGA PRASAD HEGDE @ BABANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in MVC. No. 310/2009 on the file of MACT, Udupi has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to her in the said proceedings.

(2.) THE case of appellant is that on 14.10.2008 at about 4.30 pm., when she was standing by the side of road at Kinigoli, a bus bearing No. KA -19/B -277 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her resulting in lacerated wound on right shoulder, sutured wound on left parietal area and fracture of 8th rib on right side and 4th rib on left side of the chest. In that behalf, she filed claim petition seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of said bus. In the proceedings before Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2709_TLKAR0_2011.htm</FRM> The Counsel for appellant would submit that though appellant has adduced evidence to demonstrate that she has suffered whole body disability to an extent of 18% the Tribunal has not taken that into consideration for awarding compensation for future loss of earning capacity. It is also contended that though there is pleading to the effect that appellant herein was working as a Tailor at the relevant time and due to injuries suffered in the accident she was hospitalised for a period of 10 days during which period she has suffered loss of income, is also not taken into consideration. It is further contended that Tribunal has taken the wages of claimant at Rs. 2,500/ - p.m. which is far less than the minimum wages that would be paid to a coolie, which is not taken into consideration while awarding compensation Therefore, the appeal is required to be considered for enhancement of compensation. 5. On appreciation of the submission made by the counsel for appellant and also on perusal of the finding of Tribunal in the judgment impugned, this Court find that appellant has suffered in all three injuries, out of that two are minor injuries and one fracture i.e., fracture of 6th rib of right side and 4th rib of left side of chest is stated to be grievous in nature. It is contended that there is mal union to 4th rib. The rib is tender hone, once it is damaged the question of union of rib is not there. Therefore, the evidence of Doctor, P.W.2 to say that there is mal union of 4th rib and fracture of two ribs on the right and left side of chest would cause 18% disability is unheard of and does not stand to reason. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said evidence and has not taken the same into consideration while considering the injuries suffered by claimant which are simple in nature. Accordingly it has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 68,400/ as above.

(4.) WHEN this matter was at the stage of dictation of judgment the Counsel for appellant submitted that this matter may be referred to Lok Adalath. After going through the pleadings and hearing the counsel for appellant on merits this Court find that this is not a fit case to be referred to Lok Adalath. Hence it is dismissed on merits.