MOOLCHAND Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Tribunal after framing issues and recording the evidence has held that the injury to the appellant was caused on account of rash and negligent driving and the respondents were directed to pay the alleged amount jointly and severally with interest to the appellant. The appellant has prayed for the enhancement on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not provided him all the expenses incurred in his medical treatment and the amount for the loss of wages were also not provided to the appellant. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the appellant has produced the bills of only Rs. 3,000/- to prove the expenditure in his medical treatment and the evidence of the doctor to prove the permanent disability is doubtful and as such the prayer of the enhancement should be rejected.

(2.) DR . Pradeep Choudhary has slated that the claimant was examined by him and there was 22% permanent disability on account of the fracture in his right ankle. It is admitted by doctor in his cross-examination that the bone has united and by physiotherapy the permanent disability was curable. Consequently from the admission of Dr. Pradeep Choudhary it is clear that this is acase of temporary disability. The alleged disability is curable after the physiotherapy. The appellant claimant has produced the medical bills to prove the expenses of only Rs. 3,740/-. The appellant is a painter and it is on the record that he remained in the hospital only for two days. There is no evidence that on account of the fracture of the ankle he was unable to do the work properly. The amount of Rs. 30.740/- for the single simple fracture is just, proper and adequate.