ROUTHU LIKITHA Vs. L.SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Award dated 18 -11 -2008 in MVOP No.374 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum -District Judge, Srikakulam (for short "the Tribunal") the claimant preferred the instant MACMA on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant criticized the award mainly on the following grounds: Firstly, he argued that the Tribunal erred in granting lump sum compensation instead of granting compensation each head wise. By the lump sum method, it will be difficult to understand how much compensation is granted under each head and whether compensation is omitted in respect of any particular head. Secondly, he argued that though the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.2 and held that claimant suffered head injury and fracture of shaft femur but did not believe his evidence to the effect that claimant suffered 20% permanent disability on an erroneous observation that disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board rather it was issued by a private Doctor. He argued that Doctor who is a competent Orthopaedic Surgeon and who issued Ex.A8 - Disability Certificate is no other than the one who treated the claimant in his hospital and so there is nothing wrong if he speaks about disability of the claimant. There is no hard and fast rule that disability certificate should be issued only by the Medical Board. He submitted that it may not be always possible for the victim to obtain disability certificate from the Medical Board. He thus argued that the Tribunal ought to have accepted Ex.A8 -disability certificate coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 and granted compensation for disability. Thirdly, learned counsel argued that though the claimant produced Ex.A5 - medical bills for Rs.43,000/ - and affirmed by P.W.2 that they were issued from his hospital, the Tribunal rejected the said medical expenditure and did not grant compensation in tune with the said expenditure on an erroneous observation that the claimant and advocate commissioner, who was appointed to record the evidence of P.W.2, did not verify the account books maintained by P.W.2 in his hospital and compare the medical bills filed by the claimant with the account books. The medical bills were rejected also on an erroneous ground that P.W.2 is not a Government Doctor and the injured was not referred by the Government Hospital or by the Police as medico legal case. He submitted that when the claimant has not approached the Government Hospital, the question of Government Hospital referring the claimant to P.W.2 does not arise and hence the Tribunal's rejecting the medical bills on that ground is bereft of logic. Learned counsel further argued that though Ex.A5 -medical bills were not compared with the duplicate copies maintained in the account books of P.W.2, still the Tribunal going by the grievous nature of injuries and length of treatment in a private hospital, ought to have allowed Ex.A5 -medical bills. He thus prayed for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.