TEK CHAND GUPTA Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is only on the issue of quantum filed at the instance of the claimant, seeking for enhancement for injuries sustained in the accident resulting in fracture of left arm, left thigh and ribs. The claimant had undergone a long treatment having been admitted at the Civil Hospital, Barnala and later referred to DMC, Ludhiana for better clinical management. He had been an in patient for about a month when he was operated upon for reduction of fractures by metal implants in his thigh. The doctor, who had given the treatment to him had also been examined as PW-1. The hospital records from DMC, Ludhiana had been brought forth by PW-2.

(2.) The appellant claimed that he was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month income as Manager in M/s Jindal Oil & Ginning Factory at the time of the accident and that due to injuries, he has been unable to work. PW-4 was an employee of Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory, where the claimant was reported to be working as a Supervisor. The salary certificate is produced at Ex.P22. He had given also evidence for the fact that after the accident, he had not rejoined duty. The disability certificate produced showed that he was permanently disabled and it was assessed at 60%. It was reported that there had been shortening of the leg and stiffness of left hand. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs.1,16,614/- that comprised of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.52,230/- towards medical expenses, Rs.19,384/- for expenses relating to medicines and Rs.30,000/- on account of permanent disability.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that all the expenditures incurred for the medical expenses have not been granted. According to him, the expenses as per the bills amounted to more than Rs.1,00,000/-. I have verified the bills which have been filed in the Court and marked as Ex.P3 to P-19. They total up to Rs.40,265/- but the Tribunal has even provided for an amount of Rs.52,230/- and Rs.19,384/-. The discrepancy appears to be that the advances paid on two occasions, which have been subsequently adjusted against the payments have also been added by the appellant. The amount of compensation towards medical expenses worked out by the Tribunal is even more than what the bills vouch for. The claimant has undergone a month long hospitalization when he has been operated upon. Even at the discharge summary, he has been advised periodical exercises for improvement of the stiffness of his joints and in his upper limbs. He ought to have had the assistance of physio-therapist and I would provide for him for a period of two months @Rs.5,000/- per month for physio's charges. For prolonged hospitalization for more than a month, I would provide for Rs.20,000/- as hospital charges and for intense pain and suffering, I will increase the amount from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, which would make for an additional sum of Rs.10,000/-. There is no evidence for the fact that he had not continued with his employer after the accident. Unfortunately, it has not been elicited through the doctor whether the present state of disability would prevent him from continuing in his employment. The petitioner himself has not given any clear-cut statement that in his present state of health, he will not be able to continue his job. He has brought out the fact that he has been in the hospital for a month and I would assume that for one month of discharge also he was not in a position to resume duty. His income had been stated to be Rs.6,000/- per month and I would provide for loss of earning for two months at Rs.12,000/-. For future loss of earning capacity, I would take the 60% disability to have resulted in 10% loss of earning power, since all the faculties were in tact except that he has stiffness of joints and he has altered gait. At Rs.6,000/- per month for a person, who was aged 55 years, I would provide towards loss of earning capacity to be Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability, which I would assume to be for loss of amenities of life, inconvenience suffered by him and the shortening of limb by the fractures he has suffered in his legs, ribs and arm. The Tribunal has not provided for attendant's charges and hence, I would provide for another Rs.5,000/- for the same and towards transport expenses for prolonged treatment and the person, who ought to have undertaken several steps to reach hospital at Rs.10,000/-. All these amounts would add up to Rs.1,23,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall, therefore, stand increased to a further sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and the additional compensation shall attract interest @6% from the date of accident till the date of accident.