The Tribunal failed to adequately assess medical evidence and statutory disability, resulting in insufficient compensation for serious injuries sustained by the petitioner.

ORAL JUDGMENT

In this appeal the petitioner is seeking enhancement of compensation and also challenging the liability fastened against the owner of the autorickshaw.

2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 05.06.2013 at 1:30 pm while the petitioner was traveling in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17-A-4342 near Ramadurga Gate, Nayakanahatty, Chitradurga Taluk, it was met with an accident, due to which he sustained injuries to the right limb. After taking treatment at Government hospital Chitradurga, Chitradurga Ortho Care Center and Kasthurba Manipal hospital where his right leg was amputated above knee and he has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of `18,00,000/-.

4. The claim was opposed by the insurer, the respondent have been contested the claim before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after taking evidence, after hearing the arguments of both the sides by impugned judgment awarded compensation of `30,000/- and fastened the liability against owner of the autorickshaw for want of valid and effective driving license by the driver. Leading inadequacy and questioning the liability fastened against the owner of the autorickshaw, assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the arguments of Sri. Vijaykumar S.C, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.C. Betsur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the autoricksha.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the date of accident i.e., 05.06.2013, till 12.07.2013 the petitioner was under hospitalization, he had under surgeries twice for amputation of his right leg blow knee once and above knee on the second time. Medical bills are produced to the extent of `3,07,630/-, but the Tribunal considered only `14,270/-. There is no discussion why the Tribunal discounting the complete medical bills where the inpatient bill of Manipal hospital itself stands at `64,494/- and that of Chitradurga Ortho Care Center is around `58,000/-. The Tribunal did not consider the injury certificates, treatment records and in spite of amputation was an account of inset of gangrene the Tribunal has considered that it is a simple case of injury and awarded `30,000/- erroneous and sought for interference.

6.1. It is further contended that when the petitioner suffered amputation there is no need for examining any medical officer to explain the disability as. The Tribunal ought to have relied on the schedule 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 , to ascertain the permanent disability which is statutorily defined. The Tribunal lost site of all these aspects and awarded meager compensation.

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the claim petition was filed 1 year after the accident. Driver of the autorickshaw was not holding driving license though policy was in force. Insurance company can avoid its liability as there is a violation of terms and conditions of policy. Multiple medical bills have been filed which including advance bills and bills pertains to Madhu hospital, Bengaluru, no medical officer is examined to explain the medical bills of `3,07,630/-. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal and the award of compensation is proper. The petitioner who is claiming `18,00,000/- is required to examine the medical officer, who treated him to explain the injury, amputation of his right leg was on account of the accident. In the absence of such evidence the Tribunal was handicap in determining the claim and supported the impugned judgment.

7.1. It is also contended that in the appeal the insurance company was arrayed as per the order of this Court on 05.01.2024. For all these period the insurance company was kept under dark. Now the petitioner is asking the Insurance Company to pay and recovery. Directing the Insurance Company to pay interest is not proper and requested direction to the petitioner