SIDDIQUE Vs. MOHAMMED THONDIKKODAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24/1/1998, the appellant sustained injuries when the autorickshaw in which he was travelling capsized. In the claim petition filed, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.94,870.00. The appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) Heard Sri K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri PMM Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the Insurer.

(3.) Ext.A1 certificate dtd. 18/4/2007 issued by PW3 doctor says that the appellant has sustained atrophied left testis. Ext.A3 wound certificate dtd. 24/1/1998 shows that the appellant sustained abrasion over the right foot, left foot, right thigh and had injuries to the left knee. Ext.A4 treatment certificate shows that the appellant was hospitalised between 24/1/1998 and 9/2/1998. The certificate shows that the appellant sustained multiple soft tissue injury and traumatic injury to the left testis. Ext.A6 shows that he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode between 2/5/1998 and 9/5/1998 and was treated for undescended testis and that the testis which was in the superficial inguinal pouch was mobilised and brought to the scrotum and fixed in subdartos pouch. The treatment book would show that he was reviewed for about nine times. The appellant examined himself as PW4 and has given details about the difficulties that he had undergone in Gulf where he was working and he came back after 3 1/2 years. Ext.C1 certificate issued by the District Medical Board, District Hospital, Manjeri shows that the appellant has complained of loss of libido and erectile dysfunction. The Medical Board noticed that the testis are in scrotum and that there was no obvious permanent deformity detected clinically. It was noticed that his permanent partial disability is nil. The matter was taken up before the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Calicut and the Board found that the permanent disability is 10% and issued Ext.C2 disability certificate to that effect. PW1 Doctor who had examined the appellant found that the appellant's testis was normal. PW3 another Doctor, who had issued Ext.A1 certificate which would show that the appellant's left testis has been destroyed partially, has stated that it will be difficult for the appellant to have children, in view of the low active sperm count. He has however stated in cross examination that he was not a Urologist and the actual position can be known only if a Urologist examines the appellant. Not much reliance can be placed in the oral evidence tendered by PW3. The counsel for the appellant contends that the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future treatment need to be increased. The counsel also submits that the amounts granted towards bystander expenses and transportation needs to be increased. Regarding loss of earnings, it is submitted that the Tribunal had granted loss of earnings only for three months, which ought to have been at least five months having regard to the two hospitalisations that the appellant had to undergo. The counsel also submits that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000.00 per month. It is argued that the income ought to have been determined on the basis of the minimum wages which was available in the State. There is also a claim for 40% future prospects.