MOHIT Vs. MADHU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal the appellant is seeking enhancement in the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant. The interest in favour of the appellant has been declined by the Tribunal after placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. D. Hattan Garhi Vs. Pest Control India, reported in 1995 (1) ACJ 366, and decision of the Division bench of Karnataka High Court in Nalima vs. M. D. Karnataka Insurance Department reported in 1996 ACJ 758 mr. K. Sunil, counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the permanent disability to the extent of 25 % although the appellant had suffered fracture of pelvis and, rupture of urethra of which the documentary evidence was placed on record by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant is still suffering from the urinary problem and is under continuous treatment of AIIMS. Per contra Mr. Arora, counsel for the respondent contends that just and fair compensation has been awarded in favour of the appellant and the same is itself based on the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. Counsel for the respondent further contends that appellant had failed to produce any permanent disability certificate despite various opportunities granted by the Tribunal and still in the absence of the same the Tribunal has taken the disability of the appellant to the extent of 25%.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I have also interviewed the appellant who is present in person. Appellant states that the appellant is still suffering from urinary problem. On a question as to when he had last gone to AIIMS for his treatment or examination, the appellant replied that although he does not remember the exact date of his visit to AIIMS for treatment but it was somewhere in the last year. In the impugned award also the Tribunal has observed that the appellant failed to place on record any certificate showing permanent disability or percentage of disability inspite of the fact that he was also not given any interim compensation due to lack of such a certificate. It was also observed by the tribunal that the appellant failed to adduce any additional evidence although permission to this effect was granted to the appellant. Even this Court vide order dated 25. 10. 2002 gave directions to the appellant to get a report from the orthopaedic as well as Eurology Department of AIIMS but till date no such report has been placed on record even after a lapse of five years. I, therefore do not find myself in agreement with the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of disability as has been considered by the Tribunal. The disability of a person can only be determined with the help of medical reports or certificates certifying particular disability and in the absence of such certificate or expert medical opinion, Judges being not experts in the medical field cannot themselves arrive at definite conclusion. Be that as it may, I do not find any illegality on the part of Tribunal in taking into account the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant has taken into consideration the total disability of the appellant to the extent of 25% of the whole body.

(3.) AT this stage, counsel for the appellant has pointed out that award which was passed as long back as on 6. 9. 2002, no compliance to the same has been made by the respondent no. 1. This appeal was filed by the appellant in the year 2002 and for the first time the same was taken up by the Court on 25. 10. 2002. Although, not interfering with the impugned award declining the request of the appellant to grant interest for the past period, I deem it fit to award the interest on the award amount to the appellant from the date of passing of the award i. e. , 6. 9. 2002 on the failure of the respondent no. 1 to satisfy the said award till date. The interest shall be payable @ 7. 5% from 6. 9. 2002 till its realization.