RAVI KANT ISSHAR Vs. DHARMENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award impugned is the Award dated 15.9.2010 vide which a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 32,000 had been awarded in favour of the petitioner who was the victim of an accident which had taken place on 13.6.2005. Contention of the petitioner is that he had suffered a serious injury; even after the accident he had been accorded treatment at Muzaffar Nagar; he has filed bills to the said effect; the Tribunal has not considered the bills in the correct perspective; he had exhibited these bills; even on the non-pecuniary damages the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Record shows that the victim had suffered an accident on 13.6.2005. Neither in his claim petition and nor in evidence by way of affidavit he has stated that he had been accorded treatment at Muzaffar Nagar. This is especially relevant in view of the fact that the affidavit in evidence has been filed much later i.e. March 2009 and the treatment had allegedly been meted out to him in September 2007. There is no reason as to why this fact did not find mention in his affidavit which he had filed later in time. In fact in this affidavit medical bills Ex. PW-1/D had been adverted to. However, the record shows that no such bills Ex. PW-1/D had been exhibited or is on the record. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal had rightly rejected this contention of the petitioner. The second contention of the petitioner is that the damages awarded under the non-pecuniary heads i.e. pain and sufferings which has been calculated at Rs. 3,000 is also on the lower side. Record shows that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability; even as per the record there is no document to substantiate the submission of the petitioner that he had remained in hospital between 13.6.2005 and 20.9.2005 which was his contention. The impugned Award had in fact noted that the victim remained as an outdoor patient and was not admitted in the hospital, this was as per the OPD slips filed by him. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was an insurance agent and he had suffered a fracture of the right femur bone which had adversely effected his activity during this period when he was confined to bed (which the Tribunal has noted as two months for which loss of income had been awarded at Rs. 10,000) as such compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering in these circumstances is enhanced from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10,000. No other modification is called for in the impugned Award. Petition is disposed of.