RAJARAM CHAURASIA Vs. MOHD SALIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the III Upper Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Satna in claim case no. 65/2000. Claimant is working as a ministerial employee in a Private Transport Co. at Uchehara. He resides at Satna and goes to Uchehara by train for performing his duties. It is the case of the claimant that on 26/07/2000 when he along with two of his colleagues were going back to Uchehara station at about 10 P. M. in the night to board from train, when he reached the place near Agrawal Dharam Shala, a Maruti Van bearing no. 19-A 2818 dashed against the appellant, as a result, he sustained injuries on his head, nose, chest and other parts of the body and a fracture on his backbone. Claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the accident from respondent no. 1, driver of the vehicle in question and respondent no. 2, owner of the vehicle, claim petition was filed. In support of his contention that he has suffered some injury on the ear and has lost the capacity to hear properly one Dr. B. G. Hinduja, E. N. T. specialist in govt. Hospital, Satna was examined and after evaluating the evidence and material on record, finding claimant to have sustained certain injury, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum has been granted to the claimant. Contending that the claim awarded is on the lower side and for the permanent disability of deafness suffered by the appellant in the accident, no compensation is awarded and for the injuries sustained, the compensation is inadequate, this appeal is filed. Learned counsel argued that the amount of compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- as claimed by the claimant. Taking me through the statement of PW-2, Dr. B. G. Hinduja and the medical evidence available on record, it was emphasized by learned counsel that the compensation awarded be enhanced. Refuting the aforesaid contention and referring to the expert opinion given by Dr. B. G. Hinduja in para 4 of the cross-examination so also the statement of the claimant, Shri A. P. Singh, learned Counsel with Shri Gagandeep Singh argued that the compensation awarded is adequate, looking to the nature of injury suffered and no case is made out for enhancing of the compensation. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents resist the claim of the appellant and seek for its dismissal.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the material available on record, it is seen that when the appellant sustained the injury, he was immediately taken to community Health Centre, Uchehara and in the M. L. C. report Exhibit d-3, it is indicated that he had sustained seven injuries. The injuries sustained include a lacerated wound on the head and by the side of the ear and there had been bleeding from his ear. Apart from fracture on his backbone, it is clear that in the accident appellant had sustained injury on his head and there was bleeding from his ear. For the purpose of treatment, appellant had visited Dr. B. G. Hinduja who is an E. N. T. specialist in district Hospital Satna. In his statement recorded as PW-1, appellant had stated that because of the accident he had suffered various ailments and has become deaf. Certificate issued by Dr. Hinduja is filed as Exhibit D-133, which is a certificate issued after audiogram test conducted by Dr. Hinduja. After conducting this test on the basis of the certificate issued as Exhibit D- 134, Dr. Hinduja has testified in his statement recorded as PW-3 that due to the injury sustained, claimant has suffered some defect in his ear and he has difficulty in hearing. Dr. Hinduja in his statement has explained that the appellant may not hear when spoken in normal tone but the deafness is not to such extent that he cannot hear at all. It is stated that he can hear when spoken loudly. From the statement of doctor, it is clear that even though the appellant has not suffered complete deafness because of the accident but his hearing capacity in both the ear is diminished and in his certificate Ex. P-135, Dr. B. G. Hinduja has classified the same as "semi-deafness". It is therefore clear that because of the accident appellant had sustained various injuries and finally deafness to some extent on his ear, which is a permanent disability with which the appellant will have to live for the remaining part of his life. Apart from the injury on head as indicated herein above the medical evidence available on record filed as Ex. P-1 to P-6 indicates that appellant has suffered injuries on head, nose, chest and other parts of the body. He was under treatment for various periods from the date of incident till he was finally diagnosed as a case of "semi-deafness" by Dr. Hinduja in September, 2000. For all these ailments and injuries suffered including the permanent disability of partial deafness, a meagre compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is only awarded which is very much on the lower side. Even though the appellant had tried to emphasize that he has became completely deaf and hard of hearing but in his cross-examination in para 13, he admits that he can hear the questions put to him by the counsel and the evidence indicates that he can hear when spoken to in a high pitch. At the same time, from the medical evidence and the certificates, it is established a disability of partial defence has been suffered by the appellant. In that view of the matter, considering the totality of the circumstances and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be enough to meet the ends of justice.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the learned Court below is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to rs. 1,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation shall be paid along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal in the award in question.