ARUNA Vs. NAGESHWARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter was listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed by the injured/claimant girl by name Aruna who was aged 8 years at the time of accident and who has suffered crush injury on her left hand seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) FACTS briefly stated reveal, that on 26.04.2011 injured was returning home in Tata Ace bearing registration No.KA - 37/7932. On Manvi - Sindhanur Road at about 12:15 a.m. in the midnight in between Amareshwar Camp and Potnal, a lorry bearing registration No.AP -21/Y -2654 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the Tata Ace vehicle. As a result of the impact, the Tata Ace vehicle got turtled resulting in grievous injuries to the inmates of the vehicle. One of the inmate died, whereas others got injured. The injured was initially treated at Manvi and thereafter, was moved to Civil Hospital Raichur. Claimant/appellant Aruna is one of the injured in the incident. She suffered grievous crush injury on her left elbow and extensive injuries over the left hand. She claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.38,00,000/ - for the injuries and permanent disability suffered by her. In support of the claim, one Annapurna mother of the minor claimant was examined as PW.5. Apart from producing other documents, the claimant produced the wound certificate at Ex.P31, which discloses that there was deep crush injury from wrist to shoulder, exposing bones in the left hand. It also discloses that there was fracture of left humerus describing it as a grievous injury. Photographs of the injury disclosing the nature of injury suffered by the claimants/petitioners were produced at Exs.P37 and P38. The Tribunal, keeping in mind the grievous nature of injuries and the disability suffered by the young girl, referred the matter for the opinion of the medical board consisting of experts. The experts of R.I.M.S. (Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences) Teaching Hospital have examined the child and have given the disability certificate. The disability certificate discloses that there was an extensive scarring on anterior aspect of elbow and forearm, there was fixed flexion deformity of 40 degrees and it was terminally restricted, the range of pronation and supination of forearm was restricted. Volkmans sign was positive. The dorsiflexion of left wrist was also restricted, the donar site of thigh where SSG was taken was also thickened and keloid scar had formed. On radiological examination, the Experts further found that the x -ray of left humerus Ap/Lat showed old malunited fracture of distal humerus with evidence of irregularity in joint line with myositis ossicans. There was patchy osteoporosis at the joint level. The Experts who issued the certificates consisted of a Padiatrician, General Surgeon and an Ortho Surgeon. The Tribunal has referred to this disability certificate and has taken the permanent disability suffered at 30% and assessed compensation in the following manner: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_227_LAWS(KAR)7_20141.htm</FRM>