BALWINDER SINGH Vs. JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident on 22.06.2007. He had been admitted in the Civil Hospital, Samrala from where he was referred to DMC and Hospital, Ludhiana. He remained admitted as an indoor patient from 22.06.2007 to 07.07.2007 and readmitted on 26.09.2001 for one day to be discharged and again admitted on 06.11.2007 to 17.11.2007. The petitioner claimed that he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and produced Ex.P1 to P47, all of which were photocopies of originals. It had been admitted during the time of trial that he had applied against mediclaim policy as well as for reimbursement of medical expenses from the department and that he received Rs. 1,03,712/- from his employer. While addressing the claim to medical expenses, the Tribunal reasoned that when medical expenses had been paid to the claimant by the employer, he could not be allowed the benefit again before the Tribunal by applying the judgment in Bhakhra Beas Management Board v. Mahender Pal, 2001 2 RCR(Civ) 486. The learned counsel contends in appeal that the employer had not reimbursed entire amount of what he had claimed and against the total expenses incurred for Rs. 1,61,102/-, he had been reimbursed only an amount of Rs. 1,00,447/- and consequently, an amount of Rs. 60,655/-, which was not reimbursed, must have been awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contests the petitioner's claim to say that the claimant had not produced before the Tribunal the proceedings of the employer for reimbursement of the amount. The claimant's own assertion that he received less than what he had claimed could not be a basis for awarding an excess amount. I would accede to the contentions in defence by the insurer that without any proof of the fact that the appellant had been reimbursed only a portion and that he was not fully reimbursed for the entire amount, I cannot accept the statement that he had received only Rs. 1,03,712/-. The rejection of the entire amount as covered through the copies of the bills was, therefore, justified. If there was any portion of the amount which was not reimbursed by the employer, it was only essential that the claimant had obtained the return of the originals to make a claim before the Tribunal. All the documents filed before the Tribunal were only photocopies and it cannot be vouchsafed that the entire amount was not reimbursed to the claimant. The best of evidence of what was possible had not been tendered before the Tribunal and this could have been filed at least at the time when the appeal was filed. I will not find any error in the assessment of medical expenses.

(2.) For three episodes of treatment as indoor patient, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, which I will retain. The Tribunal had also provided for Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges which is also appropriate and I would retain the same. Towards transportation from the place of accident to the Civil Hospital at Samrala and later to the hospital, at Ludhiana, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 5,000. Since the petitioner had been admitted on three occasions and treated as indoor patient, I will make a modest increase from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation. Discharge summary revealed that the claimant had suffered injury to his right arm and right leg. He was unable to bear weight of his right lower limb. He had been operated upon for fracture of right arm bone and fracture right leg bone by open reduction and internal fixation of fracture. The patient had pain at the right hip which was managed conservatively. The Tribunal had provided for Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, which I believe would be appropriate and just and would make no modification.

(3.) The doctor, who had treated him, had certified the injuries to have resulted in 40% disability. The certificate reveals that he had restricted movement of the hip and right shoulder and the doctor had certified it to be permanent. The claimant gave evidence to the effect that he was unable to walk properly and he could not sit on the ground easily. Ideally, there must have been evidence through the doctor to indicate as to how it can impact his normal day-to-day work and how it could reduce his earning skills. He is a government employee and it is in evidence that he continues in employment. I cannot, therefore, make any provision for loss of earning capacity. Against the assessment of compensation made at Rs. 40,000/- for disability, I will increase it to Rs. 75,000/-. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 10,000/- towards loss to income. The petitioner has stated in the grounds of appeal that although he was employed as Assistant Engineer in the office of Canal Division, Sidwa, Ludhiana and due to the accident, he had become incapable and unfit for discharging his duties and, therefore, he had opted for premature retirement w.e.f. 31.05.2011. I cannot accept this because the appeal itself was filed on 28.03.2011 and the evidence had been tendered through the affidavit on 27.01.2011 that he would apply for premature retirement. With no sure evidence of the fact that he had been forced to secure compulsorily retirement, it was not also possible to make any provision for loss of income more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal.