AMBARAM Vs. PRAVEEN PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT aged 22 years met with an accident with offending vehicle resulting in fracture in his left leg. This led to filing of claim petition claiming compensation under various heads. The claim was contested by owner, driver and also by Insurance Company. Eventually by impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,000/ - to the claimant. This is what was awarded to claimant - Rs. 18,000/ - towards damages for injury sustained, Rs. 5,000/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs. 4,000/ - towards medical expenses and Rs. 3,000/ - towards future loss. It is this determination which is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) HEARD Shri Rajesh Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri P.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion the appeal deserves to be allowed in part by enhancing the compensation under some head. The claimant met with an accident while travelling in tempo which collapsed while moving. The injury sustained by the claimant was in his left leg which, according to doctor (not a specialist as admitted by him in evidence), resulted in disability of 49%. According to doctor, claimant finds difficulty in walking on uneven surface.

(3.) ,000/ - in my opinion looking to the medical treatment taken by the claimant, and the expenditure incurred, and the bills filed, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - would be a reasonable sum. It is not practicable for a claimant to file bills of every item nor it is given by every person but at the same, one (patient) has to spend the money on several counts while receiving treatment. In this way, the claimant gets enhancement of Rs. 1,000/ - under this head. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in 1999 (1) TAC 413 (SC) wherein according to learned counsel, in a similar situation, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. In this way, learned counsel also in this case, claimed a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. In my view, the decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case on facts, it was found that injury resulted in shortening of leg by three inches. It was also found that claimant - a photographer by profession was unable to attend his work due to this injury and disability. It was under these circumstances, their L6rdships were pleased to award a lumpsum compensation. Such is not case here. In this case, injury did not result in any shortening of leg and secondly, the claimant was doing the job of fruit seller.