KISHANLAL Vs. ASGARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10.12.1981 the petitioner -appellant Kishanlal was a pillion rider on the motor cycle of one Kanhaiyalal. At about 5.00 p.m. while the motor cycle was moving near Engineering College, Ujjain, at slow speed, the truck bearing registration number MPU 6535 was driven rashly and negligently by the driver in the employment of his owner and caused an accident by hitting the motor cycle in a head -on collision. Kishanlal sustained severe injuries including a fracture of the right foot. He was admitted in hospital for treatment of the fracture and was indoor patient for 27 days. Though the fracture was reduced, Kishanlal suffered shortening of the right leg by one and half inches resulting in permanent disability of 65 per cent. According to Kishanlal, he earned Rs. 1,200/ - per month by dealing in bricks. His earning was adversely affected due to the permanent disability. Consequently, he claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - on account of expenses of treatment, Rs. 20,000/ - on account of bodily pain and suffering, Rs. 14,500/ - on account of loss of wages during the period of treatment and remaining amount on account of permanent disability making a total of Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE Tribunal assessed the quantum of total compensation at Rs. 11,400/ -.

(3.) IT is to be seen that there is good evidence on record and that was not challenged in appeal to the extent that the appellant has suffered a fracture of the right leg and other injuries and had to undergo treatment involving indoor hospitalisation for 27 days. He was given a plaster and the further treatment went on for a few months. The appellant has deposed that he had to spend about Rs. 14,000/ - on his treatment. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of these expenses. It is, however, settled law in claim cases that the court should take liberal attitude and in the very nature of the things a person is not expected to keep all vouchers and bills of all expenses of treatment involving a substantial amount of sundry items. It is now settled law that even if such documents are not proved, expenses for treatment should be assessed looking to the nature of injury and the period of treatment. With these two guidelines, we are of the opinion that the appellant certainly deserves to be allowed Rs. 8,000/ - on account of expenses of treatment for his injuries including fracture of the right leg which resulted in a permanent disability of 65 per cent.