JAI RAM MAHTO Vs. DIVESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the Award dated 11.7.2011 whereby a total sum of Rs. 1,33,608 had been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner Jai Ram Mahto had suffered an accident on 16.10.2007 at the main gate of Escort Hospital, Faridabad; he remained admitted in Safdarjung hospital from 19.10.2007 to 23.10.2007. In this period, a surgery was conducted upon him for fixing the multiple fractures which he had suffered on his right leg in the accident. Even after discharge, he was advised to continue with the dressing. Thereafter, another surgery was conducted upon him to remove the steel plates which had been implanted; he remained hospitalized for the second period between 13.11.2007 and 23.11.2007 i.e. for a period of 10 days; no medical record had been filed by the petitioner to substantiate any further surgery undergone by him as has now been pleaded; contention being that he had undergone two other surgeries; his medical bills for a sum of Rs. 18,148 had also been fully reimbursed.

(2.) The petitioner had not filed any record about his income or educational qualification; minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker rounded off to Rs. 3,520 had been taken into; he had been granted 'loss of income' for a period of three months; Court had noted that since the petitioner remained hospitalized for the second time also up to 23.11.2007 and the accident having occurred on 16.10.2007 as also the fact that he was advised to visit OPD once in a week after 23.11.2007, loss of wages for a period of three months had been calculated on this count; a total sum of Rs. 10,560 had been awarded under this head. Under the head of loss of earning capacity followed the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in judgment of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., 2011 1 SCC 343, the correct formula was applied and giving benefit of 8% functional disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 60,825.6 had been awarded on this count; conveyance and special diet had also been taken care; a sum of Rs. 14,000 had been awarded on this count. The Court had also taken judicial note that the pain and suffering which such a victim would have suffered for which a sum of Rs. 30,000 had been granted; thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,36,608 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum had been granted in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) On no ground this award suffers from any infirmity. In fact, the only submission urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under the head "pain and suffering" amount awarded is less. Keeping in view the nature of the injury suffered by him, the period of his hospitalization as also the fact that he had suffered 8% functional disability, all these facts had well been taken note of.