NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SINGARAM @ SINGARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accident, which occurred on 10.03.2008, a bicycle rider sustained grievous fractures of 2 to 5 ribs ( left side). Initially, he has been provided first aid in Jayakondam Government Hospital and thereafter taken treatment in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and fracture of left scapula. According to him, as an agriculturist, he earned Rs.4,500/- per month. To prove the nature of injuries, he has marked Ex.P2, Discharge summary and Ex.P4, X-ray. PW2, Doctor, who examined the respondent with reference to the above records, has deposed that the movement of the scapula in the left shoulder was restricted to 40% and the strength in the left hand, was reduced to 20%. Considering the above and the discomfort experienced by the respondent, PW2, Doctor has opined that the respondent would find it difficult to lift objects in the left hand and accordingly, assessed the functional disability as 27%. He has also opined the disablement as 'Permanent' and issued Ex.P3, disability certificate. Having regard to the extent of disablement assessed, to a 62 year old man, the claims tribunal has decided to award Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability and accordingly, awarded Rs.40,500/- as disability compensation. In addition to the above, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- for loss of future earning, Rs.9,500/- for transportation and Rs.25,000/- for nutrition. Altogether, the claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.

(2.) Though, Mr.G.Udaya Sankar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in arriving at a conclusion that there was a permanent disablement, and consequentially, erred in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of earning, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that, judicial notice can be taken that in villages, even elderly people engage themselves in agricultural or other activities and earn their livelihood. In the case on hand, the respondent by marking Ex.P2, discharge summary, and Ex.P4, x-ray, has proved that he had sustained a fracture in the ribs and scapula. Malunion in older age is not uncommon. PW2, Doctor, has assessed the disablement as permanent. Considering the age of the respondent, degeneration of bones in older age, is always a factor to be considered as to whether, there would be proper fusion of the fractured bones.

(3.) At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to extract from the medical texts, as to what are the cases of malunion and non-union of bones and the treatment given by the Doctors.