SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three cases are connected as they arise out of the same accident that took place on 23.08.2008.

(2.) THE appeal in FAO No. 1651 of 2011 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant -Sukhbir that were said to have resulted in fracture in his head and serious internal injuries in his stomach. He had been taken to the Public Health Centre at Taoru and later referred to Gurgaon for treatment. He had taken treatment at Paras Hospital, Gurgaon and still later at Lifeaid Medical Centre, Gurgaon where he remained admitted from 23.08.2008 to 31.08.2008. The discharge summary that had been issued at that time showed that he had rupture of the spleen with urinary bladder injury. The Tribunal, while assessing compensation, provided for Rs. 98,400/ - for the bills brought on record. The claimant had been granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - towards pain and suffering and I will increase the claim to compensation for pain and suffering at Rs. 25,000/ -. It is not very clear from the evidence as regards other medical expenses for attendant charges, special diet and transportation and I will add Rs. 7,500/ - under the said three heads. There is no evidence regarding loss of income that the nature of injury would have kept him out of employment at least for three months and I would provide for Rs. 10,000/ - as loss of income. There does not appear to have permanent injury arising out of the accident. There shall be, therefore, an additional compensation of Rs. 22,500/ - which will attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

(3.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant -Bijender. He had suffered fracture of 2nd metacarpal and trapezium of right hand. The medical bills brought on record showed that he had spent about Rs. 2,00,987/ - and the Tribunal granted Rs. 2,01,000/ -. The disability assessed of his right hand by the doctor at 70%. An injury in his hand cannot result 70% of the whole body and I take, therefore, the disability qua limb. It is seen from the evidence that he was working at Senior Secondary School and he had stated that after the accident, he could not attend the school. It is not very clear whether he had been dismissed from service or there was any particular disability that could hamper his continuation in employment. The doctor had merely referred to the disability and how his disability would get translated to loss of earning capacity must have been a matter of evidence. I find the assessment made already providing for Rs. 1,40,000/ - as going towards loss of amenities is substantial and takes care of even the expenses like attendant charges, special diet and transportation. The pain and suffering seems to be the only component which is assessed on a lower side and for the fracture, if the claimant had been provided for Rs. 25,000/ -, I would find no reason to make that addition even, for, the disability qua limb is assessed fairly high and I find no reason increasing it again under the head of pain and suffering. There is no ground made for enhancement of compensation. The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.