IMPORTANT POINT
Where no evidence is given for medical expenses, some allowance must he made for the amount that the claimant would have spent on his medical treatment.

JUDGMENT

S.S. Sodhi, J. - The claim in appeal here is for enhanced compensation. The claimant Mohinder Pal was travelling in the Haryana Roadways bus BY A-3748 when it was involved in an accident with the truck PBP-5817 coming nom the opposite direction. This happened at about 10.30 A.M. on September 28, 1980. On account of the injuries received by Mohinder Pal in this accident, his right arm had to be amputated from the shoulder. The Tribunal after holding the truck driver wholly to blame for this accident awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to Mohinder Pal.

2. According to the claimant P.W. 1 Mohinder Pal he was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. After the accident he remained admitted in the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh for a period of 23 days and it was there that his right arm had to be amputated. Next to note, with regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant is the testimony of P.W. 4 Dr. R.K. Jain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar who initially examined Mohinder Pal and referred him to the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigarh for treatment He noted four injuries on the right fore arm of the claimant, two of which were grievous in nature.

3. The main medical evidence is that of P.W.5 Dr. Shivinder Singh Gill, Lecturer in the Department of Orthopaedics at the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Chandigrah who deposed that Mohinder Pal was admitted in the hospital on September 28, 1980 having crushed injury of the right arm. The right upper part of the arm and the axile bone were badly crushed. Articulation through the right shoulder was done the same night and he was again operated upon for skin grafting on October 16, 1980. Mohinder Pal was discharged on October 21, 1980.

4. It is pertinent to note that the claimant has not brought on record any evidence regarding the medical expenses, if any, incurred by him on his medical treatment.

5. As regards the financial loss suffered by the claimant on account of his injuries, P.W.1 Mohinder Pal deposed that he was a registered medical practitioner having passed this course in 1973, he had been practising as such six months prior to the accident and his earnings from the medical practice were Rs. 1,000/- per month. A reference to the cross-examination of the claimant, however, makes interesting reading inasmuch as he admitted that R.M.P. was only a certificate but not one issued by any college or university. Further he stated that he had undergone training from one Dr. Chander Muni of Saharanpur for 4 or 5 years. In other words it cannot be taken as established that the claimant had any medical qualifications by virtue of which he could be taken to be a medical practitioner. His statement therefore, that he was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month cannot be believed. It is also pertinent to note that though he stated that he had passed the medical course as far back as 1973, it was only six months prior to the accident that he had started practice. Not without significance here is the further point that no register of patients or any other document is forthcoming to corroborate his statement that he was in medical practice.

6. Such thus being the state of evidence, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be assessed on the basis of the disability that the claimant has now to live with for the rest of his life on account of loss of his arm, coupled with also the pain and sufferings caused to him. Some allowance has also to be made for the amount that the claimant must have spent upon his medical treatment Besides all this, there is also the aspect of the diminished prospects for earning on account of loss of the right arm. There can, of course be no precise measure for computing such loss in monetary terms but past precedents of awards for similar injuries do indeed provide a relevant guide. Reference may in this behalf be made to the judgment of this Court in Papsu Road Transport Corporation. Patiala v. Qimat Rai Jai