M. K. SHAH, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant received injuries showing fracture dislocation cervical 6th and 7th with complete quadraplegia with complete motor and sensory loss below the injured segment. He had multiple abrasions over chest and shoulder. Due to injuries to the spinal cord there was paralysis below the injured level. There was paralysis of both the upper limbs and both the lower limbs including paralysis of the front and back abdominal muscle below the injured segment and his nervous system of the spinal cord was also affected following the injuries. He was immediately removed to the L. G. Hospital at Maninagar but was shifted within a few hours to the V. S. Hospital. There he was treated upto 25th March 1973 and thereafter he had to go to the hospital for physiotherapy treatment and consultation with the Orthopaedic surgeon

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY he had claimed a sum of Rs. 1 75 0 but the same was reduced by an amendment to Rs. 1 25 0 There was contest from the side of the respondent No. 1who denied that the accident happened because of a rash and negligent act of driving on the part of respondent No. 1 driver; and the quantum as well as the basis of compensation claim were also challenged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) THE appellant who was original applicant before the Tribunal has approached this Court in appeal being aggrieved by the said award for Rs. 27 500 only as against the claim of Rs. 1 25 0 and he prays that the additional amount of Rs. 97 750 be awarded to him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 4 ) IT will be thus seen that the contest before this Court is limited to only five items i. e. items set out in the following paragraphs of the petition : (1) 11 (1) (a) for medical expenses for which Rs. 6303. 98 P. were claimed and nothing was awarded by the Tribunal. (2) 11 (1) (b) for transport charges i. e. conveyance expenses incurred by persons attending on the claimant while he was in the hospital for which also the claim of Rs. 1050. 00 was disallowed. (3) 11 (1) (c) - expenses for trip to Bombay to consult Dr. Dholakia the claim in respect of which was for Rs. 500. 00 which was disallowed. (4) 11 (3) (a) is in respect of loss of earning during treatment and an amount of Rs. 7000. 00 was claimed which was totally disallowed; (5) 11 (3) (b)is in respect of future economics and claim for Rs. 1 50 0 was made but it was allowed to the extent of Rs. 7500. 00 only.

( 5 ) WE will take each of these items one after another and consider the rival contentions in respect thereof advanced by both the sides.

( 6 ) SO far as the first item is concerned with regard to medical expenses incurred the claimant has led evidence to show that the bills in respect of the expenses incurred for medical charges were submitted by him to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. who were the insurers for the Mafatlal Group Medical Aid Scheme; and as the claimant deposed the Mihir Textile was a Mafatlal Group Mill having scheme for medical expenses and be had to pay premium under the scheme which was deducted from his salary. Under the scheme the claimant the members of his family got medical treatment for which the insurance company used to pay and for reimbursement purposes he had to send the original bill to the company while prefering claim bills. He had produced with list Ex. 58 the bills submitted by him on the claim forms of work sheet setting out all details about the payments made and he said that those forms bore his thumb impressions and signatures; that they were filled in triplicate and that the set which he was producing was the one returned to him after the liability was duly discharged. The said forms were put in and marked Ex. 63 collectively In our opinion. this evidence clearly establishes that expenses to the extent of Rs 6157. 39 P. as shown by these claim forms were incurred by the claimant and the liability was discharged by the insurance company in pursuance of the scheme earlier referred to These fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document