AMIT BATHLA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks enchancement in compensation amount over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(2.) On perusal of the award, it is manifest that the appellant had placed on record various bills and the Tribunal after considering those bills and depositions of P W 5 to P W 3 assessed the income towards medical expenses and towards conveyance and transportation Rs. 50,000.00. The contention of the Counsel that the Tribunal erred in noticing that the appellant claimant had deposed that he had lost some of his medical bills for the period 1992-1997, cannot be accepted as it is no more res integra that in the absence of any cogent evidence mere assertions are of no value and compensation cannot be awarded. In this regard in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 S.C.C. 197 : 2002 (1) T.A.C. 138 , the Honourable Apex Court observed as under:

(3.) In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the award in this regard and the same is not interfered with. As regards pain and suffering, loss of efficiency and loss of enjoyment of life, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000.00 to the appellant. The appellant claimant lost his right leg and right hand and also sustained deep abrasions over whole of his right leg extending from knee joined to ankle joint and various other wounds and abrasions on the other parts of the body. He underwent split thickening skin grafting in Sadarjung Hospital. He was diagnosed for hypertrophied scars over whole of the right leg and swollen ankle with restriction of movement. In such circumstance, I feel that the compensation towards pain and suffering loss of efficiency and loss of enjoyment of life should be enhanced to Rs. 75,000.00 from 30,000.00.