The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to assess the impact of permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity and to quantify the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, emphasizing the importance of medical evidence and the assessment of medical expenses in determining the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.

1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P. No. 414 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of the fracture injury to his right leg sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 18.02.2006 at 7.30 PM, while he was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 23 V 7541 from Mominpet to Sadasivpet. The case of the appellant is that the driver of the auto, after reaching Mekavanampally village, drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner due to which the auto turned turtle. On account of the fracture injury, he was admitted in Remedy Multi Speciality Hospital, Kukatpally and spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment and also required further amount for his operation and treatment. He is a resident of Sadasivpet Village and doing business of tea powder and other articles. On account of the accident, he sustained permanent disability and lost his earning capacity in future at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, the claim.

2. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 is the Insurer of the said vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate counters and denied the allegations. Though the respondents admitted the involvement of the auto and the injuries to the claimant, they disputed the health condition, age and income of the claimant.

3. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Bujji Babu, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. RW-1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B1 was marked.

4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that after considering the pleadings and material on record, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of Rs. 90,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses. The compensation claimed towards partial and permanent disability due to shortening of “right leg stiffens” was rejected by the Tribunal holding that the claimant failed to establish permanent partial disability. Aggrieved by the dismissal of compensation claim insofar as partial permanent disability, the instant appeal is filed.

5. Heard Ms. Shalini Saxena, representing Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, has categorically deposed in his evidence on 30.06.2007 that the claimant sustained five injuries viz. 1. Deformity middle third of right leg; 2. Laceration of about 3 x 1 ½ over right leg; 3. Swelling right A C joint of right shoulder; 4. Tenderness over right iliac crest and 5. History of loss of bone pieces from right leg. PW-2 gave evidence for the second time on 20.06.2008 stating that the claimant was admitted on 30.10.2007 for removal of ring fixator and anaesthesia was given and cement plaster was applied. The fracture had completely healed but with mal-union, the claimant has partial permanent disability of 50% to 60% in view of shortening of right leg stiffness. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant was doing business in tea powder and other articles and his monthly income was around Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of PW-2 in the proper perspective and also erred in taking into account the income of the claimant. The Tribunal erroneously granted compensation under the head “pain and suffering” only for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- viz. Rs. 50,000/- for the fracture of both bones and Rs. 20,000/- for the secon