SMT. SUDHA DEVI Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injury suffered by the Appellant Sudha Devi in an accident which took place on 16.10.1985 at about 6:30 PM. As per the case of the Appellant proved before the Tribunal she was walking on the kacha road from Badarpur Border to her house in Mahipal Colony, Katan Pahari, Badarpur. A Haryana Roadways bus No.HRU -2229 driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No.3 (Sukhbir Singh) came from behind and struck against the Appellant. She suffered injuries on both of her legs, left arm. There was fracture of shaft of femur and subtrochanteric fracture of shaft of femur. She was operated upon and discharged from the hospital on 15.01.1986. Since there was failure to unite the bone, she was again admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on 20.10.1986; internal fixation was carried out on 26.11.1986 and she was discharged from the hospital on 29.12.1986. She followed up with physiotherapy after the surgery. It was the case of the Appellant before the Tribunal that she earned Rs. 600/ - per month by doing tailoring work at her house. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The Appellant was issued a Disability Certificate showing disability of 65% of left lower side of the body.

(2.) According to the Appellant, she has not been granted any compensation towards the special diet. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and permanent disability was on the lower side. She was not granted full compensation for the amount spent on conveyance. The claimed and the awarded amount are extracted hereunder in a tabulated form:

(3.) Ms. Manjeet Chawla, learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through to the Appellant's testimony who was examined as PW -5 before the Tribunal. Appellant did testify that after the accident she was unable to do the tailoring job and there was loss of income of Rs. 600/ - to Rs. 700/ - per month. Apart from this bald statement, the Appellant did not adduce any evidence that she was unable to do the tailoring job because of the permanent disability suffered in the left lower limb. The Appellant examined PW -6 Dr. P.K. Dave who testified about performing the operation for the fracture of shaft of femur. He was completely silent if on account of the permanent disability suffered, the Appellant would not be able to do the stitching work on the sewing machine.