LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-30

MASTER TAHIR Vs. MADAN

Decided On March 09, 2010
MASTER TAHIR Appellant
V/S
MADAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner who is a minor claiming damages for the injuries suffered by him. The facts giving rise to the accident are not disputed and do not require detailed narration. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- only along with interest. The claimant challenges the quantification of damages.

(2.) While awarding compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on Ex.PW-1/D which is Disability Certificate of the claimant. The learned Court holds that it could not be taken in to consideration as the doctor who issued the certificate has not been examined as a witness.

(3.) An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC being CMP 18 of 2005 was filed by the claimant praying for permission to lead additional evidence to prove this certificate in accordance with law. This application was heard along with the appeal on 23.10.2009 and allowed. Dr. Amarjit Singh, who has specialized in Orthopedics is working in the First Referral Hospital, Nalagarh, appeared in Court today and proved this certificate Ex.PW-1/D. He stated that permanent disability suffered by the petitioner is 30%. It is undisputed that this fracture had been caused in the right arm of the petitioner who is still of adolescent age. In these circumstances, it is but natural that his capacity to earn or to undertake a career requiring normal use of the limbs will be adversely affected. On the question of quantification, very little evidence has been produced by the petitioner. His mother has appeared as PW-1 stating that future prospects of her son have been marred and he cannot lead a normal life. She also states that his studies have been adversely affected. It is but natural that such adverse impact on the future prospects of the child could be proved by evidence over and above the oral statement of the mother, but unfortunately this exercise has not been undertaken. It is also unfortunate that the petitioner who was minor at the time of accident has been made to suffer on this count.