BRIJ MOHAN Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of grievous injury sustained by the appellant-Shri Brij Mohan whose left leg has been amputated due to an accident caused by the vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur has been pleased to pass an award in his favour to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) only although a finding has been recorded in his favour that he was hit by a tempo which was insured with the respondent No. 3- National Insurance Company Ltd. as a result of which he had to undergo treatment for more than three months and ultimately his leg had to be amputated. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident has been assessed as 66 years although he had asserted that his age was 55 years at the time of accident. The appellant claimed that he was running a `kirana Shop' by which he was earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000 per month on an average. The appellant had further claimed that he had to spend approximately Rs. 22,000/- on his treatment. He however did not furnish any bill in this regard but produced the admission ticket which was Exhibit-5 and this indicated that the appellant was admitted into the hospital for ten days and his leg had to be ultimately amputated during this period. Prior to this, the X-ray was done for the fracture sustained by him. The Tribunal therefore passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for the injury which left him totally incapacitated. The appellant feeling aggrieved with this amount has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount.

(2.) THE respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. However strongly refuted the claim for enhancement of the compensation and on the last occasion it was vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, Mrs. Manju Jain that the admission ticket which was produced by the appellant regarding his admission into the hospital for ten days during, which X-ray of his leg was done did not indicate that his leg has been amputated. It was therefore submitted that since there is no proof in regard to amputation of his leg, the claim for enhancement of the compensation should not be entertained.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the case of the appellant technically comes within the head of `partial permanent disablement' yet it is difficult to lose sight of the fact that the net result of his injury amounts to permanent total disablement considering the limitation in normal discharge of functions. Thus the injury suffered by the appellant in terms of percentage of injury is difficult to assess and hence no deduction can be made out of the amount to which he would have been entitled if it were technically a case of total permanent disablement. Thus after applying a multiplier of 5 to the income of the appellant considering his age alongwith the expenses, the figure which is arrived at is Rs. 1,25,000/- which shall be paid expeditiously to the appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company after deducting the amount which has already been paid. The impugned award thus stands modified. The appeal accordingly stands allowed with cost. .