MAIN POINT
Principles for determination of compensation restated.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant in the instant appeal is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him in M.C.O.P. No.597/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Namakkal.

3. The brief facts of the case are:-On 18.11.2009, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN 27 0907 owned by Respondent No.1, while driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed TVS 50 (bearing Registration No. TN 28 X 4892) driven by the appellant from behind, due to which appellant sustained in the eye-brow, chest and multiple injuries all over the body. The second respondent herein is an insurance company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured.

4. Appellant filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident. The tribunal upon consideration of the rival contentions, vide order dated 9.09.2011 awarded compensation of Rs.25,300/-alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appellant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A. No.554/2013, wherein vide impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013, the High Court refused to interfere with the findings of the tribunal on the ground that the appellant has suffered only simple injuries.

5. Contention of the appellant is that at the time of the accident he was working as a labourer in a Poultry Farm and was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. The accident has caused multiple rib fractures to the appellant which has severely affected appellant’s ability to work in the Poultry Farm or to do any physical work. Thus, appellant has contended that he has sustained permanent disabling injury and therefore the learned tribunal erred in relying on self-contradictory testimony of Dr. Balaji (RW-1) of Vinayaga Mission Hospital, Salem, who has prepared the wound certificate (Ex. X4) on the basis of case sheet (Ex. X3) to the effect that the appellant has suffered only two simple injuries.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company has, by and large, supported the impugned judgment.

7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

8. Appellant in his claim petition has pleaded that immediately after the incident, the injured appellant was admitted in Aravinth Hospital, Namakkal where he had taken his first aid and then he was admitted in Vinayaga Mission Hospital, Salem for treatment, and after taking treatment, appellant has taken further treatment in Maruthi Hospital.

9. In his evidence, claimant stated that he had sustained multiple fractures and had taken treatment at Vinayaga Mission Kripananda Variyar Medical (VMKVM) College and Hospital. To substantiate his evidence, Dr. Govindasamy (PW-2), Medical Officer of VMKVM was examined on the side of the claimant. He deposed that the appellant was admitted as an inpatient on 18.11.2009 and medical treatment was given to him and he was discharged on 24.11.2009. PW-2 further stated that X-ray was taken of the chest portion and found fractures in right ribs 5th to 8th and Report of the same is marked as Ex.X1. Further in the primary records maintained in the hospital, it is stated in column of final diagnosis that there are multiple right rib fractures 5, 6, 7, 8 and the copy of the same was marked as Ex.X2 which is prepared after comparing with the original. During cross-examination of PW-2, suggestion was put to him that the appellant did not sustain fractures of right ribs 5th to 8th and the same was denied by PW-2.

10. The tribunal discarded radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital on the ground that the claimant had not pleaded in his claim petition about the treatment in VMKVM College. Thus, appellant did not specifically plead that he was treated in VMKVM College and Hospital. However, in our considered view, it can not be taken as a ground to discard the radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital.