SURENDER SINGH Vs. PARMOD KUMAR ALIAS VINOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal against the award dated 26.07.2007 passed by the MACT, Karnal by which compensation amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the road side accident has been granted to him under various heads. Dissatisfied with the award, the present appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence produced by the Appellant-claimant properly that the Appellant-claimant has remained bed-ridden for about four months and nothing under the head of loss of income has been granted by the Tribunal. It is his further contention that he has 30% disability, Appellant-claimant literally could not do his work properly and this factum has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) It is a case where the Appellant-claimant had been under treatment for sufficiently long time and during this period, he had remained bed-ridden. Learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the head of medical expenses; Rs. 60,000/- on account of 30% disability. As the Appellant-claimant had remained admitted in hospital for sufficient long time and the doctor must have prescribed him special diet and some attendant must be their during this period to look after the claimant-Appellant.

(3.) Any claim for injuries comprises of two broad heads: pecuniary and non-pecuniary. In respect of pecuniary heads, the claimant is expected to produce fairly accurate details, so that the Tribunal is in a position to assess the compensation on a sound basis. For non-pecuniary heads, a certain approximation could be made but even there it shall become necessary to adopt some yardstick that allows for consistency in approach.