SHRUTHI Vs. M.N. SANTHOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISSATISFIED with the award passed by MACT directing the respondents to pay compensation of '. 26,000/ - with interest, seeking enhancement, the claimant has filed this appeal. Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned Advocate would contend that the Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating the evidence placed on record in the correct perspective. Learned counsel submits that there being credible evidence produced with regard to grievous injuries sustained resulting in permanent physical & functional disability at least to an extent of 10% which would affect the future earnings of the Claimant, there is no award under the head 'loss of future earnings'. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the permanent disability suffered, there being loss of amenities, the Tribunal has failed to award any sum thereunder. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has not passed just and reasonable award under any of the heads.

(2.) SRI O. Mahesh, learned Advocate, on the other hand, would contend that the X -ray relating to the injury sustained has not been produced and the claimant being aged about 13 years and a non -earning person, the claim for payment of compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' is untenable. Learned counsel submits that the claimant being young, must have overcome the injury sustained and as a result, the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

(3.) EX .P6 is the wound certificate. In the road traffic accident, appellant sustained fracture of left humerus. She was inpatient in the first instance for 18 days in the hospital and in the second instance, for 8 days. She has taken treatment as is evident from the evidence of Dr. Prasanna Anaberu, examined as PW -2. Exs.P8 to P27 testify the obtaining of treatment. Evidence of PW -2 makes it clear that there is 10% permanent disability suffered in relation to whole body. Though the claimant is a non earning person, since permanent physical disability sustained would come in the way of her future earnings, Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings' by taking notional income of the claimant at '. 15,000/ - p.a. The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities', despite the permanent physical disability suffered. The assessment of loss by the Tribunal is neither just nor reasonable. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the just and reasonable compensation which the respondents have to pay to the appellant is as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_231_LAWS(KAR)3_2012.htm</FRM>