SURESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Award impugned before this Court is the Award dated 29.09.2009 by which compensation in the sum of Rs.8,95,000/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THIS clam petition has been preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA Act). The claimant is the victim himself; he had suffered injuries in an accident which had occurred on 31.12.2006. Petitioner was driving his truck when another truck hit him from the opposite side and pursuant to this collision the petitioner sustained serious injuries. Offending vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No.3; it was owned by respondent No.2; the insurance policy was also admittedly valid on the date of the accident. Three issues had been framed. The petitioner had examined five witnesses in his evidence. No evidence was led by the respondents. The aforenoted awarded amount was accordingly accorded.

(3.) THE salary of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was proved from the salary certificate Ex.PW3/A which was proved in the version of the PW3. Monthly income was thus assessed as Rs.5,000/-. THE indoor treatment of the patient was admittedly between 01.01.2007 to 28.01.2007; however, keeping in view, the nature of the injuries which were described by PW2 Dr. V.K. Jain which included a compound fracture dislocation right ankle; compound comminuted fracture both bones left leg; facture right medical maelleous; a period of 4 months was taken into consideration to hold that during this period the petitioner was not able to carry out his normal duties; the loss of income was assessed for a period of four months. PW2 the doctor has also admitted that the petitioner had remained admitted in the hospital upto 28.01.2007; he had further stated that the treatment of the petitioner is still going on but there was no evidence forthcoming about the aforenoted treatment. Even before this Court, on a specific query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he concedes that no documentary evidence about the future treatment meted out to the petitioner has been placed on record. THE bills for the purchase of medicines were lastly up to March 2007, but the nature of the medicines mentioned in the cash memos are not indicative of any special treatment being meted out to the petitioner by virtue of which his normal capacity was hampered. Although PW2 had stated that the future surgery of the patient which is required as a follow-up and it would cost approximately Rs.25,000/- but as noted supra even before this Court the appellant has admitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on this count. In these circumstances claim for future treatment had not been awarded; loss of income for a period of4 months was also in conformity with the documentary evidence.