RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UMESH CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by appellant, who has been granted compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum vide Award of 26th August, 2006 on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 19th June, 2005. The facts are already noted in impugned Award and so need no reproduction. Suffice to note that appellant was aged 34 years at the time of accident and was a self-employed driver said to be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Apart from the evidence of appellant-Claimant, there is other evidence to prove the medical report of appellant and the factum of accident. The owner and driver of offending vehicle have also stepped into the witness box to put forth their version. On the basis of evidence led, learned Tribunal has rendered the impugned Award. Under the head of 'loss of income', compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and under the head of 'medical expenses and special diet, etc.' Rs. 1,50,000/- has been granted to appellant by learned Tribunal. Under the head of 'pain and suffering', compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted and under the head of 'loss of amenities and general damages', Rs. 50,000/- has been granted to appellant.

(2.) During the pendency of this appeal, appellant has led additional evidence regarding the medical treatment undertaken by him post the Award period. To prove the medical expenses incurred by him, appellant has got examined Dr. Sanjay Yadav (AW-2) from the concerned hospital to prove the Disability Certificate indicating 60% permanent disability. The medical bills placed on record by appellant are to the extent of Rs. 18,605/- which includes the hospitalization charges as well. To seek enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for appellant submits that 'future prospects' have not been taken into consideration. It is also submitted that the expenses incurred by appellant in getting treatment post Award, needs to be granted to him and that awarded amount ought to carry interest @ 9% per annum instead of 8% per annum.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer supports the impugned Award and submits that appellant was not in permanent employment and so, appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account of 'future prospects'. However, it is submitted that grant of medical expenses incurred by appellant post Award period is justified. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.