SURESH BABUBHAI MINOR Vs. JANARDAN CHHAGANLAL CHOKHAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Suresh Babubhai who is a minor filed an application for compensation through his guardian his father on the allegation that on 18-8-1970 on the public road opposite to his house he received injuries due to the accident caused by original opponent no. 1 (respondent no. 1) who was the driver and owner of motor car bearing no. B. S. I 7019 The said motor car had passed over his leg and there were crushing in juries. It was therefore alleged that original opponent no. 1 drove his car rashly and negligently and caused injuries to the applicant which resulted in the permanent defect to his leg and therefore an amount of Rs. 62 0 as compensation was claimed. After the hearing the learned Tribunal came to the affirmative conclusion about the rash and negligent driving of the car by opponent no. 1. There is no challenge to this finding before us and therefore we would not dwell much upon it.

(2.) Further on considering the injuries received by the minor applicant the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 0 for medical expenses Rs. 1 0 for physical pain and suffering and Rs. 6 0 for permanent disability and general damages i.e. in all Rs. 8 0 Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded the minor applicant has come in appeal.

(3.) In order to appreciate the pain and suffering undergone by the applicant and also in order to consider the future disability it will be worth while to consider the evidence of medical expert. The applicant has examined Dr. M. M. Pandya at Ex. 91. He is Orthopedic Surgeon attached to Maskati Hospital and Surat General Hospital. It is true that though the accident took place on 18-8-1970 this Dr. Pandya examined the applicant on 4-3-1971 in his consulting room as a private patient. But the evidence of this Dr. Pandya also clearly shows that though the applicant was first brought to him after seven months after the accident he had known about the injuries of the applicant when he was admitted in Maskati Hospital and treated there. It is an admitted position that Dr. Pandya is an Orthopaedic Surgeon attached to Maskati Hospital and also he has his own consulting practice. The latter examination was in his consulting room. But as he was attached to Maskati Hospital as an Orthopaedic Surgeon person with such injuries must have been shown to him and therefore the admission of Dr. Pandya that he had seen the s applicant earlier would clearly go to show that he had some idea about the type of injuries received by the applicant. It was also found that at Maskati Hospital the wound of the applicant became septic. At Maskati Hospital the applicant was treated by Dr. Dixit who is not an Orthopaedic Surgeon. It was urged before the learned Tribunal as well as before us by Mr. M. A. Trivedi learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 that Dr. Pandya has admitted that as the applicant was not treated well at Maskati Hospital initially his wound had become septic which ultimately resulted in the permanent defect. But this is a generalization of about the type of injuries received by the applicant. Ultimately Dr. Pandya had to admit that even if the applicant would have been treated by the Orthopaedic Surgeon soon after the accident the result would not have been different because according to him the crushing had completely done away the extensor muscles of the toes and it has produced infection in the joints of the foot and this deformity of the foot has resulted from the distraction of the joints. So the contention that if the applicant would have been treated by an Orthopaedic Surgeon right from the beginning then this deformity would not have remained has no substance. The final examination made by Mr. Pandya would be the deciding factor to know what the applicant suffered and what he will suffer throughout his life. Not only that but that would also show to us the extent of pain and suffering undergone by the applicant during the treatment and future pain that he would suffer even mentally after the entire treatment is over.