JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT and I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. vide judgment and award dated 17.11.2017 in MVC No.58/2017.

2. The factum of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and coverage of insurance, are not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.

4. In the present case, from the medical records placed on record it is proved that the claimant has suffered the following injuries:

(i) Open comminuted fracture of left tibia and fibula bones with crush injury –

amputation of left leg above knee.

(ii) Fracture of right femur shaft

5. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under various heads as follows:

6. The claimant has suffered fracture of left tibia and fibula bones with crush injury amputation of left leg above knee and fracture of right femur. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’, which is on lower side. Hence, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards ‘pain and sufferings’.

7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.22,500/- towards ‘conveyance, food and attendant’, which is on lower side and needs enhancement. Hence, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded towards ‘conveyance, food and attendant charges’.

8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,81,500/- towards ‘medical expenses’ based on the medical bills produced by the claimant, which is correct and needs no interference.

9. The Tribunal has only considered 30%

functional disability, which is on lower side. The claimant was aged 35 years as on the date of accident and was a welder by profession and stated to be earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant has suffered amputation of left leg above the knee, which has resulted in claimant being not able to do his work with one leg and therefore, it is amounting to 100% functional disability. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJ KUMAR VS. AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER1, wherein at Paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 19, it is held as under:

“12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.

13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage