THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3370 of 2000 Date:20.11.2009 Between: Datti Vasanth . ..Appellant. and Kishan Vijay Vargia and another. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3370 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is filed by the claimant against order granting compensation at Rs.50,290/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- sought for by him. This is a case of injury. It is alleged that right hand of the claimant had suffered amputation to a major extent resulting in 50% disability. Though the amputation is only in respect of index finger, the other three fingers are having stiffness and there is also stiffness in the wrist joint. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, Assistant Professor of Orthopedics in Osmania General Hospital. However, though it is found that the appendix of evidence in the impugned order does not refer to P.W.3, the learned Judge towards the end of para 8 of the judgment has noticed the evidence of P.W.3. The said medical evidence has been also contested on cross- examination and P.W.3 was consistent in his statement that the injury to the right hand was in the nature of crush injury and after treatment and grafting of skin, the disability continues and it is assessed at 50% disability. P.W.3 also produced case sheet of 22 pages, O.P. ticket and M.L.C. form along with the said evidence. Further, all this evidence is not referred to in the appendix of evidence appended to the impugned order and not considered by Tribunal below. The only short question that falls for consideration is whether the just and adequate compensation has been paid to the claimant taking into consideration his disability. The claimant had claimed Rs.76,000/- compensation towards continuing permanent disability and as against the same, the Court below granted Rs.29,900/-. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the Court below had taken the said disability at 15% though as per P.W.3 it was 50%. I have seen Commissioner’s report through which the evidence of P.W.3 was filed before the Court below. The said Orthopedic Doctor – P.W.3 has specifically described the injury, details of amputation and disability, and has certified the same as 50% of the right hand disability. The said evidence remained unshaken even on cross-examination. The Court below, however, has taken the said disability at 15% and applied the multiplier of 18.43. Taking the age of the claimant at 23 years being it at the time of accident and his earnings at Rs.900/- per month, compensation towards disability was arrived at Rs.29,900/-. I am, therefore, of the view that the Court below committed basic error in ignoring the medical evidence, which certifies the disability and has proceeded on an assessment of disability, which has no basis. Therefore, the award under appeal requires modification to the extent of granting compensation by taking the disability of the claimant at 50%, without interfering with the age, monthly income and the multiplier factor as assessed by the Court below. Instead of 15%, if we take 50%, the compensation for disability would work out to Rs.99,542/-. However, as the claimant has claimed specifically a sum of Rs.76,000/- towards compensation for continuing the permanent disability, the enhancement hereunder is restricted to Rs.76,000/- as against Rs.29,900/- awarded by the Court below. With regard to the rest of the award, the impugned order remained undisturbed. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed granting the enhancement of Rs.46,100/- as indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% from the date of claim till realization. No order as to costs. __________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J) 20th November, 2009 GHN