KARNATAKA GENERAL INSURANCE DEPARTMENT Vs. K. RAMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Perused the impugned judgment and the record of the Tribunal. This appeal is by the Karnataka General Insurance Department and the owner of the vehicle, namely the Police Department. The only grievance of the appellants is that the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,59,200/ - (should be Rs. 1,64,200/ -) is highly excessive and requires to be appropriately reduced. The motor vehicle accident had occurred on 27 -2 -2010. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent -claimant had suffered Galeazzi fracture (fracture of the radius with dislocation of the distal radio ulnar joint) in the left forearm and the compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the said injury is highly excessive.

(2.) THE Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,64,200/ - under the following heads:

(3.) IN my opinion, the assessment of disability stated by the doctor cannot be believed in the absence of any documentary evidence issued by the hospital where the claimant got treated. It is relevant to state that HOSMAT hospital where the claimant got treated is a known orthopedic super specialty hospital in Bangalore and it is difficult to appreciate why the claimant -respondent could not obtain any disability certificate from the hospital. In the discharge summary -Ex. P. 4 which is dated 2 -3 -2010, there is no mention of any kind of disability suffered by the claimant. On the contrary, it is mentioned therein as - 'No distal neurovascular deficit'. The claimant was in the hospital as an inpatient for three days. It is not in dispute that, the claimant got the entire medical expenses reimbursed from the Government as the claimant is working as a Head Constable in the Police Department. On the facts of the case, in my opinion, the compensation assessed under the two heads referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant is highly excessive. The ends of justice would be met, if the compensation of Rs. 60,000/ - awarded towards 'pain and suffering' is reduced to Rs. 30,000/ - and the compensation awarded towards Toss of amenities and future happiness' is also reduced to Rs. 30,000/ -. I find no ground to interfere with the assessment made by the Tribunal under the other heads. There is mistake in totalling the compensation assessed by the Tribunal under the various heads. It should have been Rs. 1,64,200/ - instead of Rs. 1,59,200/ -. Accordingly the compensation of Rs. 1,64,200/ - assessed by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 75,000/ -. In other words, it is reduced to Rs. 89,200/ - along with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit by the appellants. As the claimant -respondent is working as a Head Constable, I find no justification for deposit of a portion of the award amount in fixed deposit in a Bank. Hence, the claimant -respondent is entitled for withdrawal of the entire compensation amount of Rs. 89,200/ - along with interest. The award of the Tribunal is modified in terms stated above.