LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-469

RAJKALA Vs. BHISAM

Decided On July 17, 2014
Rajkala Appellant
V/S
Bhisam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is without any merit. Counsel is unable to give to me any better details. The counsel states that only Rs. 1,16,000/ - has been awarded for injury which has resulted in 40% disability. A fracture of leg which was operated upon resulting in 40% disability must be understood as a functional disability of the leg and the percentage of disability must again be understood as a disability qua limb when the whole leg from the hip to the toe is assumed to have a functional disability of 90%. The counsel would make no attempt to make an argument on the nature of injury suffered or how this disability could impact any of the earning skills. There has been some approach by this court at various times to provide for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - for percentage. As unsatisfactory as this method could be, it has gained prevalence through Division Bench ruling of this Court and I would make no attempt to modify the same and I find that the tribunal has awarded what was appropriate and just. It has provided Rs. 15,000/ - for pain and suffering which again is a subject to component and I have in a judgment in Madan Lal Papneja Vs. State of Haryana : 2012 ACJ 199 attempt to standardize the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 7500/ - per fracture and Rs. 5,000/ - for surgical intervention. The grievance is that this Court has not provided for attendant charges, special diet and transportation. If there was any evidence brought through record as regards the same I could have considered but it is more an argument by the counsel than what is available as a basis for enhancement. The tribunal has also granted Rs. 21,000/ - for medical expenses said to have been incurred by the appellant. Counsel relies on a judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satya Parkash Thakur and others : 2007 ACJ 714 stating that for 40% disability the Court has granted Rs. 4 lacs. I find no point of law has been made through the said judgment to follow in this case.

(2.) THE appeals id dismissed.