'I'HiS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS Day;-«.'_1§n._E COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: " JUDGMENT
The claimant/ appellant is Vbeforett thjs Coe1rt’v
enhancement of compensation as against in
MVC No.1167/2004». By the vs-aid award;hotbed”i71fibun«a1″has granted
the compensation of Rs.38,000a/–$. ht .2
2. The learned ..e§pe11ent while seeking
enhancement 1 of 1′ the:V;.corn’pen’s’a”tion’A-‘ contend that no
cornpensation; has .bAee-nw–atz(rarded”t.owards ‘loss of future earnings’
even though thee._dqocto’r”wh’o’ ha’d_:trVeated the claimant has stated
that there is ‘2″7′?.o disab,iIit§t and 9% to the Whole body. it is further
contendedvl”that:’ under the other heads the compensation
granted inadéet-:1t1at.e.in as much as the claimant was a sugar
T’v.__c’on1’ractot’—andv_ vh’a_d}iost sufficiently in View of the injuries suffered
in accident. Hence it is contended that the
‘c«ornpe’ns’a,t_io«n has to be enhanced.
A
‘-s
3. On behalf of the respondent, the award passed byabthe
Tribunal is sought to be justified. It is contended
though the nature of the disability as stated by
noticed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has”rightly_ not
same since the same does not relate to functional disabil,it_V.”
further contended that, on the other also the “Triiibun’aliiihas it
granted appropriate compensation and doles-iinoti call for
interference. he i A
4. In the light ‘.Of~\:?:’\:7l’i.<",-Li'. ion perusal of the
facts involveCi.i~4'n'itl1e,: iitiviViou'ldi indicate that the nature
of injuries suffered inhthe accident which occurred
on 05.11.2003 not in dispute. The claimant had
e;_<«am_ined,_':_liirnse1fV_ as l5VJ.l.___.a,«;v1d the Dental Practitioner Dr. B. S.
Bagi, whio-.had'itreated_ the claimant was examined as PW2. The
ii"i._d,0curnents=indicating'the nature of the injuries and the treatment
i:"–.{'CT'aCl,§3I'Cd the claimant in respect of the said accident was
i at~..E}xs:Pl to P9. The fact that the claimant had lost three
had also suffered injuries all over his face, more
' »v._vApartiicularly to the jaw cannot be disbelieved.
J
-‘a
5. In a matter of this nature, the question arises is_..as to
whether the disability as stated by the doctor could be
the present case. In my view, even though the learned *
for the appellant has contended in this _regard, uh’
rightly not accepted the disability for p3i_irpose’~_o’f
future income, since there is not}ii._ng..zindicated. and “r_efer.red to r ‘
show that based on said injuries_ui’the=_,_Vclaihmant been
incapacitated. Further, havingfsaid, that requires to be
noticed is that, in that bacitgroiiiid compensation
awarded is jL3;s’th’ar1d.:pr0pe:’r’L’
6. Even, thought<no_farnoun't– could be granted towards the
'loss of future e'arningVs',_ 'sinceflthe nature of injuries would not
indicate udisability',i._.but there will be discomfort and in that
regard,Wsome iamgouvnt requires to be granted under 'loss of
arneniiiti.es.?,_Vg«'I'heirefore',"a sum of Rs. 15,000/– is awarded under the
said head? Further, since the claimant had suffered facial injuries,
, _ftl'1e"'anioL1.nt awarded towards 'pain and suffering' is on the lower
iand"a"s such a further sum of Rs.l5,000/– is awarded and
J
'4:
towards ‘food, nourishment and conveyance’ a sum of /.
is awarded. J ii
7. Hence, the claimant/appellant in all is
enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/-
rate awarded by the Tribunal. Therespondent}corndtation
deposit the enhanced amount with inteifest six
weeks from the date of receipt copy”o.£i.:tl*iiVst’.o&rdeic.iiiiflniideposit,
the entire amount shall be disb1i11i”s.eid itollie
Costs.
Sd/~i
313198}:
ii