AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. DHARAMENDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.11,66,721.00 included Rs.1,20,000.00 for disability caused that and Rs.10,14,729.00 for the medical expenses incurred, Rs.4000.00 for special diet, Rs.4000.00 for attendant charges, Rs.20,000.00 for pain & suffering and Rs.4000.00 for transport.

(2.) AT the time of trial, PW2 Dr. Bimla Gouri, had deposed that she alongwith two other Doctors working in the Civil Hospital treated the petitioner for the fracture of the shaft of femur with fracture of both bones with degloving injury and the total disability was assessed to an extent of 60%. PW4 Dr.Salil Saha had treated her immediately after the accident and he referred to the fact that immediately after the injuries she was treated at ICU and once she was stable, her case was taken up for multiple surgeries. Her thigh bone was fixed with external fixator and her leg was also fixed with a fixator. Several skin grafting surgeries were done on account of the avulsion of the skin to cover up the exposed limb. Later on her thigh bone was also fixed with interlocking nail and discharged from the hospital on 10.5.2007. The evidence reveals that she had suffered surgeries that require admission and discharge over a period of time and prolonged treatment as brought out in the judgement of the Tribunal in paragraph 13(c). The expenses incurred had been fairly prodigious and the Tribunal had awarded the entire amount of medical expenses incurred.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that her marriage prospects have been completely ruined. She was a brilliant student, but she has not been able to undertake any strenuous activity skills as well. It is stated that she is working as a Teacher, and she had Diploma in Computer Education and she was also trained in stitching and weaving. Learned counsel states that her injury has squarely affected her earning skills as well. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company would state that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation appropriately and there is no scope for an enhancement. He would contend that the disability assessed is only qua the limb and the whole body disability could not have been as more than 10%. Even such a disability has not resulted in any loss of earning skills and the assessment made at Rs.1,20,000.00 for disability adequately compensates her and the other conventional heads of claim have been properly dealt with.