1 23 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1007/2006. (Lasu @ Laxman Lal Vs. Dinesh Chandra & Ors.) Date of Order :: 15th March 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, for the appellant. .... BY THE COURT: With reference to a vehicular accident that occurred on 22.08.1992, the claim application was made by the claimant-appellant only on 13.11.2001, stating his age on the date of filing of the claim application at 29 years; his being engaged in labour and agriculture earning Rs.4,500/- per month; and having sustained grievous injuries on his head and leg bone; his leg having shortened and his having suffered permanent disablement and being unable to work. The claimant submitted that on 22.08.1992 while taking his cattle from Ojariya to Bhesau by the roadside, he was hit by a jeep bearing registration No. GAW 7098 and sustained grievous injuries, was hospitalised and remained bed-ridden for four months, and three persons were required to attend on him. After framing of necessary issues and taking evidence, the Tribunal has held the accident to have occurred for rash and negligent driving of the said jeep and has held the non-applicants, driver, owners and insurer of the jeep liable for compensation. 2 Taking up quantification of compensation, the Tribunal has referred to the disablement certificate (Ex.1) and the testimony of PW-1 Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar; has also referred to the injury report (Ex.5) of the appellant; and finding 1½ inch shortening of his leg, restriction of ankle movement and 28.5% permanent disablement and other losses suffered, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- towards treatment expenditure (though no bills were produced); Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and special diets; and Rs.4,000/- towards loss of income for about 2-2 ½ months. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.65,000/- towards loss of future earning and another Rs.28,000/- towards permanent disablement. In this manner, the Tribunal has proceeded to award compensation in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the claimant-appellant together with interest @ 6% per annum. The claimant seeks enhancement over the award amount by way of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has been in error in allowing Rs.28,000/- towards disablement particularly when there been 45% restriction of movement of ankle joint and the ultimate award amount in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- remains on the lower side and deserves modification. 3 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is clearly of opinion that in the fact situation of the present case the amount awarded by the Tribunal is itself much on the higher side and there is no scope for enhancement. It is noticed that the accident in question occurred on 22.08.1992 and the injury report (Ex.5) was prepared only on 27.08.1992. The injury on one-third lower portion of right leg has been referred for X-ray but no such X-ray report made at the relevant time has been placed on record; nor there is any proof of the treatment undergone by the appellant. It is also noticed that the so-called Medical Board has proceeded to examine the claimant-appellant only on 09.11.2004, i.e. much after filing of the claim application; and an X-ray plate No.3945 dated 06.11.2004 has been produced on record. An X-ray taken more than 12 years after the incident cannot be taken in proof of injuries as suggested nor has any bearing on the questions involved in the case. The Medical Board has merely proceeded to state about 1 ½ inch shortening of the right leg below the knee and about 45% restriction of the right ankle joint without specifying if such so-called disabilities have any co-relation with the injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant-appellant in the accident said to have occurred more than 12 years ago. 4 From the injury report (Ex.5) at the most injury No.1, i.e. the injury on one-third lower portion of the right leg, could be taken as a grievous injury but it is difficult to deduce that there was shortening of right leg or there was restriction of ankle joint due to such injury. Yet the Tribunal has taken a very lenient view of the matter and without any restrain has liberally allowed compensation on all the scores including Rs.65,000/- towards loss of future earning capacity. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in this case could only be said to be rather excessive and rules out any scope for enhancement. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/