Compensation must reflect actual injuries and economic loss; proper assessment of disability is crucial.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

This appeal is preferred by the claimant/appellant who suffered accidental injuries on 10.04.2016, when he was proceeding on a Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28/W-8170 as a pillion rider. A Cruiser Jeep bearing No.MH-13/AZ-0915 which came from the opposite direction hit against the said motorcycle, on account of which, the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to the injuries sustained and the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries.

2. The appellant preferred MVC No.1439/2016 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,51,250/- with interest at the rate of

6 % p.a.

3. The injury suffered by the claimant in the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 to pay the compensation are not in serious dispute, as the Insurance Company has not challenged the judgment and award.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded under various heads are not in commensurate with the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal has not properly considered the medical expenses incurred and also awarded lesser compensation towards loss of future earnings considering the functional disability at 5%, whereas the appellant has sustained four fractures. He therefore, sought to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has contended that the Tribunal having taken into consideration all the relevant materials and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the claimant and it does not require any modification. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

6. The appellant is examined as PW2. CW1 is the doctor who has issued the Disability Certificate-Ex.C2 and speaks about the disability suffered by the appellant. Exs.P6 and P7 are the wound certificate and discharge summary, Ex.P8 is the Discharge Card, Ex.P9 is the hospital bills along with 39 medical bills. Ex.P10 is the 25 medical reports, Ex.P11 is the prescription. Ex.P12 is the Cardiogram Report, Ex.P13 and Ex.P19 are the three x-ray films. Exs.P16 to P18 are the reports and letter issued by the doctor.

7. The material on record reveal that the appellant sustained diffuse cerebral edema, fracture of nasal bone, fracture of right iliac crest-wing, fracture shaft of right femur, fracture of II and III metacarpal left hand, as well as injuries to head and right thigh. Ex.P6 would disclose that there is a CT Head - diffuse cerebral edema, CT Face - nasal bone, comminuted fracture of right iliac crest-wing and fracture of lower 1/3^rd T/F right. As per the X-ray reports, there is a fracture of right femur and left hand II and III metacarpal. The doctor has opined that, injuries 1 to 5 are grievous in nature and 6 and 7 are simple in nature. Further, as per Ex.P7 - discharge summary, the appellant was admitted to the hospital on 10.04.2016 and discharged on 16.04.2016 and at that time he was diagnosed for diffuse cerebral oedema, comminuted fracture right iliac crest-wing, fracture of lower 1/3^rd T/F right, fracture shaft of right femur, fracture of II and III metacarpal hand. Further, Ex.P.8 – discharge card shows that he was once again admitted on

16.04.2016, operated on 18.04.2016 and discharged on

26.04.2016.

8. The doctor has assessed the disability at 20%

to the upper limb. The Tribunal taking into consideration the disability assessed by the doctor, opined that the appellant has sustained 5% disability to the whole body. Having perused the medical documents, disability certificate and the evidence of the doctor and considering the injuries i.e., fractures sustained by the appellant, we are o