ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr Sagar Dhargalkar for the Appellant and Mr Amey Kakodkar with Mr Pankaj Shirodkar for Respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2023 in Claim Petition No.27 of 2018, by which the Tribunal awarded the appellant/claimant compensation of 8,87,382/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till final payment as against the claim of 25 lakhs.

3. Mr Dhargalkar submits that the Tribunal erred in denying any compensation towards loss of future earnings due to the disability incurred by the claimant. He points out that the evidence in such matters is required to be liberally construed, and further, the Courts must not be niggardly in awarding compensation. He submits that the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the injured claimant.

4. Mr Dhargalkar submits that the medical evidence clearly showed that the claimant would have difficulty squatting. He referred to the claimant’s detailed evidence, pointing out how, as an antenna mechanic, the claimant would have considerable difficulty in pursuing his vocation. Based on all this, he submitted that functional disability should have been taken at least 10% and the compensation awarded for loss of future earnings. Mr Dhargalkar submitted that even the compensation awarded under various heads was too low. He pointed out that no compensation was awarded towards litigation expenses. For all these reasons, he submitted that the compensation amount should be suitably enhanced.

5. Mr Kakodkar and Mr Shirodkar learned counsel for the Insurance Company, defended the impugned award based on the reasoning therein. Rather, they submitted that the Tribunal has been generous in awarding compensation even though the doctor had deposed that the disability was mild and the claimant could not only walk but also run. They submitted that since compensation of more than what was due has been awarded under some of the heads, no further compensation should be awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, they submitted that this appeal may be dismissed because the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was “just compensation”.

6. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

7. The record shows that the petitioner was involved in a vehicular accident, as a result of which he suffered injuries. The doctors assessed the disability at 10%.

8. The claimant examined Dr Shivanand Bandekar, the Dean of Goa Medical College and the Head of the Orthopaedic Department, as AW3. This doctor produced a certificate issued by the Board certifying that the claimant’s case was of compound fracture to mid-shaft (right) femur without distal neurovascular deficit for which he was operated. The certificate records that the claimant healed clinically and radiologically. The certificate records that the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant is 10% (Ten Percent).

9. For denying loss of future earnings, the Tribunal relied upon certain statements from Dr Bandekar’s deposition. Dr Bandekar stood by the certificate issued and further pointed out that the fracture was treated with an interlocking nail inserted into the bone. He pointed out that the implant was still in the leg of the claimant. In his cross-examination, the doctor stated that with this type of permanent disability, the claimant will have difficulties in squatting, but he can walk, climb stairs and run. The doctor denied the suggestion that the claimant had not suffered any kind of permanent disability. But he added that the claimant could do all types of work to earn a living even with such disability as the disability was mild.

10. The doctor’s evidence has to be read along with the detailed affidavit in evidence filed by the claimant in this case. The claimant was a skilled Dish Antenna Technician. In paragraph 15 he has deposed in great detail, not only to his earnings but also the nature of the work carried on by him.