MOBIN KHAN Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The accident was said to have taken place at the time when the claimant was proceeding from his residence to a religious place on a motorcycle along with the pillion rider. The injury was on account of a collision with a truck with the claimant's motorcycle that required hospitalisation and surgical interventions thrice. The doctor who had examined, gave evidence to the effect that the claimant was operated on four occasions, namely, on 7.7.2008, 11.7.2008, 29.7.2008 and again on 29.8.2007. The first two operations were for reducing the fractured shaft of femur and for fracture of D12 with paraplegia. The third operation was for the infected wound and the fourth operation was for the infected bedsore. It appears that for implants which had been made for correction of fracture was removed on 14.11.2009 after subsequent admission and discharge. The doctor also gave evidence that the patient was under a follow up treatment till late in the year 2010 and the bedsores were healing.

(2.) THE medical evidence brought through P.W.4 also was a pointer to the effect that he had been rendered immobile and that he could walk on his own. He was certified to be a paraplegic with 100% disability. P.W.3 was an Account Executive of the company in which the claimant was working as a driver on a salary of Rs.4500/-. He gave evidence to the effect that his services were being kept on compassionate basis and could be terminated at any time. He was to retire after completing 58 years of age. The Tribunal while awarding compensation assessed the income at Rs. 4500/- and considering the fact that he was aged 28 years, applied a multiplier of 16 and assessed the loss of earning capacity at Rs.8,64,000/-. It added provision for medicines, attendant charges and transportation and provided total compensation of Rs. 10,95,407/-.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would submit that Section 53 in its language would bar an action only if the claim under the Act is for employment injury. Section 53 is reproduced as under: