SHAM LAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is of the year 2008 and on admitted facts, the case is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Mr. Balwinder Singh, counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded for enhancement of compensation. It is a case of injury. The appellant was one of the commuters travelling in offending vehicle from Udhampur to Gordhi, i.e. Bus No.JKU 0085 owned by respondent No.2 driven by respondent No.3 which met with accident on 04.03.2003. There were number of casualties, including the present appellant. He filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was decided by a common award dated 27.04.2005.

(3.) Insofar as present case is concerned, the issue regarding injuries sustained by appellant - Sham Lal which has been decided by the Tribunal reads as under; Issue No.2 (in CP No.2) Petitioner Sham Lal has stated that his two teeth got broken in the accident. Besides that he received injuries on his neck and back. The petitioner has deposed that he was running a shop but due to this physical impairment, he is unfit to lift heavy load so his earning capacity has been effected. He has no source of income. He has spent Rs.60/70 thousand on his medical treatment. PW Dr. Naresh Chopra has stated that injured has suffered 45% disability according to the medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Udhampur. The petitioner was suffering from compound fracture of L1 vertibra with subluxative of C2 -C3 with compressive neuropathy right upper limb. From the perusal of the aforementioned evidence it stands proved that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability up to the extent of 45%. Nevertheless there is no proof as to how much he had spent on his treatment. He was treated in Govt. Hospital, therefore substantial amount on medical expenses must have been borne by the State. Similarly, there is no proof how much of his earning capacity has been affected. Nevertheless he has suffered injuries in the back bone so his earning capacity is bound to have divindled. The petitioner is young man of 31 years so loss of earning capacity would be rather substantial. There petitioner must have suffered great pain and agony and must have spent something on his treatment. There is no rebuttal to the evidence on the part of the respondents. For the fore going reasons I am of the opinion that the compensation to the extent of Rs.80,000/ - (eighty thousand) would be adequate in the matter.