K.S. SANTHOSH Vs. H. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prakasha, H.C., learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Sri D. VijayaKumar, learned Counsel, who is representing Respondent No.3.

(2.) Challenge in this Appeal is the order that is passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadur, in MVC No.294/2018, dtd. 2/3/2021.

(3.) This is a Claimant's Appeal. As against the claim for Rs.25,00,000.00 in total, the Tribunal through the impugned Order awarded a sum of Rs.4,97,732.00as Compensation and dissatisfied with the same, the Claimant is before this Court. The nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant is not in dispute. By the evidence brought on record more particularly through Ex.P5-Wound Certificate and through the evidence of CW1, the Appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained type B open fracture distal 3rd of right femur, and injury over right thumb. The said injuries are noted as laceration over right knee, exposure of right knee and fracture of right supra condyle femur in Ex.P5-Wound Certificate. Also it is not in dispute that the Appellant was admitted at the Hospital on 21/5/2017 and was discharged on 13/6/2017. CW1, who spoke about the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant and their impact, said that the disability in respect of right leg is 55%, which is permanent in nature. However, the Tribunal assessing the evidence of CW1, came to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body would be 18%. Though learned Counsel Sri Prakasha, H.C. submits that the Tribunal has not assessed disability properly, yet, having considered the nature of the injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal needs no interference.