SUBHASH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was injured in a road accident which took place on 18.04.2001. He was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. HR - 26 M -7520 being driven by its driver Jitender. On the way from Rohtak to Delhi, the driver gave lift to a person named Kapoor Singh. The offending vehicle was allegedly being driven by the driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver lost control of the vehicle and hit a tractor trolley which was parked on the road. The Appellant sustained serious injuries and allegedly suffered 100 per cent permanent disability with his backbone damaged. Kapoor Singh, however, escaped. The injured were removed to Rohtak hospital. The Appellant filed claim petition which was disposed of by learned P.O., MACT vide impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2008. By virtue of this award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,11,032/ - which included statutory interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - already awarded to the Appellant. Since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent National Insurance Company; it was directed to pay the awarded compensation with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. In default of payment of the same within 30 days, it was to be paid with interest @12% per annum. The amount awarded was made up of Rs. 1,50,000/ - on account of pain and suffering and continued permanent disability, Rs. 4,61,032/ - on account of expenses towards medical treatment, Rs. 25,000/ - towards conveyance and special diet, Rs. 2,75,000/ - on account of permanent disability and loss of income and Rs. 1,00,000/ - on account of loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and marriage prospects. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award and contended the awarded compensation to be on lower side. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation for future medical expenses; the compensation on account of conveyance, special diet, permanent disability and loss of income. Compensation on these counts was stated to be on lower side. It is averred that the Appellant had suffered 100% disability which he had to suffer throughout his life and this has affected his earning capacity.

(2.) NONE appeared for the Appellant on 12.08.2011 and on 19.08.2011 i.e. the last date of hearing despite pass over.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the Appellant met with an accident and sustained injuries in the manner as noted above. The Appellant has placed on record disability certificate Ex. PW2/C dated 29.06.2001 which has been issued by AIIMS, New Delhi. This certificate has been brought in testimony of PW -2 Suresh Kumar, nephew of the Appellant. As per this certificate, the Appellant attended AIIMS as OPD patient and was diagnosed as traumatic paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement. It represented Appellant to be having 100 per cent permanent physical impairment. The Ld. Tribunal has accepted this certificate as correct without doing any further inquiry as regard to its genuineness or even as regards to the functional or economic disability of the Appellant in the context of 100% permanent physical impairment. It is trite law that 100% permanent physical impairment in every case cannot be taken to be 100% functional economy disability. It is functional and economy disability which ultimately affects the earning capacity of a person.