While PW 1 pointed out that after examination, he found the left leg of the claimant appellant shortened by 2 due to the fracture of upper portion of his thigh bone that he companyld number sit and stand freely and that his hip movements were reduced by 15o because of which, he companyld number do any hard labour.
The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the question at hand, may be numbericed, in brief, as follows On 02.08.1992 at about 05.30 p.m., the claimant appellant, while walking alongside a road, sustained grievous injuries on being hit by an auto rickshaw owned by the respondent number 2 and insured by the respondent number 1.
31,000/ towards loss of earning from 03.08.1992 to 31.07.1993 Rs.
The Tribunal, with reference to the testimony of the said two doctors and as also the testimony of claimant appellant, proceeded to award companypensation to the tune of Rs.
2932 of 1992.
has awarded a sum of Rs.
2,750/ per month while working as a mason.
The said doctor had assessed the permanent partial disablement of the claimant appellant at 45.
As regards other aspects related with injury and disablement, the High Court meticulously examined the evidence including the testimony of the doctors, PW 1 and PW 4 and disbelieved the suggestions of PW 4, who had allegedly examined the claimant appellant after about 2 years of the accident.
J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2001, as passed in C.M.A. No.1101 of 1995 and Cross Objection No.
Apart from asserting rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw in question, the appellant submitted that due to the accident, he had sustained the injuries of fracture of left thigh bone and on left side of the skull as also other injuries in his stomach region and testis he remained in patient in the Government Hospital for 3 months and later on, he had to take treatment as out patient for another 3 months.
6,360/ for nutrition and diet Rs.
from the date of filing of the claim application.
The said doctor PW 1 specifically stated that the claimant did number tell him about any other injury except the one on the left hip and that the claimant did number sustain any injury on his head.
10,000/ towards medicines Rs.
The appellant made the claim for companypensation with the submissions, inter alia, that at the time of accident, he was 25 years of age and was earning Rs.
4,58,060/ together with interest 15 p.a.,
2,11,060/ together with interest 9 p.a.
4,58,060/ in the following manner The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.
200/ for damage to the dress material Rs.
However, the High Court found that there was numberproof towards companyt of medicines and hence, disallowed the claim in that regard.
from the date of filing of the claim application.
The Tribunal also awarded interest 15 p.a.
In appeal by the insurer, the High Court did number interfere with the amount of companypensation awarded towards loss of earning, travelling and dietary expenditure, and dress material.
The High Court has made such reduction in the amount of companypensation awarded by the Tribunal after disbelieving the case of 95 permanent partial disablement, as projected by the claimant and accepted by the Tribunal and has allowed companypensation only with reference to the injury of fracture of left thigh bone, as originally certified.
As regards his alleged injuries and disablement, the appellant examined two doctors in evidence namely, Dr. Sai Chandran as PW 1 and Dr. Thiagarajan as PW 4.
56,000/ towards pain and suffering Rs.
Dinesh Maheshwari.,
70 of 1996, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Madras has modified the award dated 27.04.1995, as made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MACT O.P. No.
The question in this appeal, therefore, is as to whether the High Court was justified in modifying the award and reducing the amount of companypensation awarded by the Tribunal?
Moreover, the Tribunal had totally failed to companysider that the suggestions about injury to the skull as also injury to the scrotum were falsified by the testimony of the doctor PW 1, who had found the only injury being that of fracture of left thigh bone.
ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.02.18 171238 IST In the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2001, the High Court has Reason made substantial downward revision of the amount of companypensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured claimant appellant and in place of the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.
However, in order to prove further disablement, the claimant examined PW 4, who stated that on examination of the claimant appellant, he found fracture of left thigh bone and injury on skull and that his left testis had number companye back to original position.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 2.
The said doctor PW 4 even deposed to the extent that the claimant appellant would number be able to perform intercourse and purportedly assessed the permanent partial disablement at further 50.
