SH. HARPAL SINGH Vs. PIARA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury sustained in a motor accident. There is no representation for the Appellant at the time when the matter is called.

(2.) THE case is of the year 1989 and I do not want therefore to dismiss the appeal for default or merely adjourn the case to await the arrival of the counsel. I proceed to consider the case on merits on the basis of the records available. The evidence placed before the Tribunal was that in the motor accident the claimant who was a student of law suffered injury on his right arm and that he lost one year of his academic career. Dr. M. P. Singh had given evidence to the effect that he had noticed a transverse lacerated wound below the olecranon tip exposing the fracture of the upper end of ulna. He also expressed to have suffered a fracture of the lateral condyle humerus. The doctor had given evidence to the effect that ulna nail fixation and reduction of radial head was done under general anaethesia and he was discharged on 20.8.1984. He had observed that at the time of giving evidence in Court the claimant had a loss extension by 30 degrees till 100 degrees i.e. 20 degrees short of full flexion. His assessment was that he had suffered a 30% disability and that it would remain for the rest of his life.