The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide sufficient evidence to support medical expenses claimed in compensation cases, and the need to establish a causal link between the injuries and the accident to justify the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This is an appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup-M, in MAC Case No. 1048/2016 vide judgment dated 08.03.2017.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the appellant, while walking by the side of the road on 15.12.2015, was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing Registration No. AS12J/9273 as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his person.

4. Accident claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the M.V. Act,1988 claiming compensation in respect of the medical expenses incurred by him. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed in MAC Case No. 1048/2016, awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant as medical expenses.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the appellant had submitted a claim of approximately Rs. 7.5 Lakhs as medical expenses for the treatment incurred in treating the appellant's injuries, the learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 50,000/-, without examining the relevant medical records. He submits that as there is no dispute with regard to the medical bills submitted by the appellant, the learned Tribunal should have awarded the amount as provided in the medical bills. He also submits that on being knocked down by the motor cycle, the appellant sustained fracture injuries on his ankle and knee of the right leg and on the left arm and also after 6 or 7 days the appellant suffered brain haemorrhage.

6. The appellant's counsel submits that if the learned Tribunal had doubts with regard to the medical bills submitted by the appellant, the learned Tribunal should have examined the same by calling witnesses. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Shanmugham v. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2006) 4 MadLJ 257.

The appellant's counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Traders Syndicate v. Union of India, (1983) AIR Calcutta 337, in support of his submission that in the absence of any cross-examination or suggestion with regard to the genuiness of the medical bills submitted by the appellant, the respondents are deemed to have accepted the medical expenses, as reflected in the medical bills.

7. Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that no doctor or representative of the hospitals was examined to prove the genuiness of the medical bills submitted by the appellant. He, thus, submits that without there being any proof of the genuineness of the medical bills submitted by the appellant and keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, there is no infirmity in the decision of the learned Tribunal in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only. He also submits that there is no proof of the alleged brain haemorrhage suffered by the appellant being related to the accident.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. On perusing the medical bills submitted by the appellant, it appears that the appellant was first admitted to EMM Hospital & Research Centre, Tezpur on 15.12.2015 and discharged on 16.12.2015. In the medical report of EMM Hospital, Tezpur, the injuries of the appellant is shown as right leg and left shoulder following RTA. Thereafter, he was admitted to Pratiksha Hospital, Guwahati on 16.12.2015 and discharged on 22.12.2015. The final bills of Pratiksha Hospital shows that the injury of the appellant to be “leg AP/LAT.” Thereafter, he was admitted to International Hospital, Guwahati and discharged on 06.01.2016. The discharge report dated 06.01.2016 shows the final diagnosis of the appellant as follows:-

“1. Right Tibia Fracture (Lower End) with Fracture Left Neck of Humerus

2.