Case: N.Suresh Vs. Yusuf Shariff

of Kowdle Post Office (as deposed by appellant and corroborated by P.W.6, Thimmaiah, Postman)Rs. 2,495/- p.m. TotalRs. 10, 995/- Therefore, it can safely be stated that the appellant was earning minimum Rs.8,500/- per month prior to the accident. 17. The PW.3, Doctor deposed that the right leg is 90% disabled and is permanently paralysed. The leg is amputated. Apart from this, his face has been deformed and is disabled to the extent of 50% to 60%, due to which he is not in a position to open his mouth fully. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the appellant is 90% permanently disabled to earn any income. The Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate the facts and fixed the disability at a lower level of 40% or 50%.18. Admitted, the appellant was about 32 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation. Once the income is considered at Rs.8,500/- per month it comes to Rs.1,02,000/- per annum, 90% of the same comes to Rs.91,800/-. If the same is multiplied by 16 it comes to Rs.91,800/- x 16 = Rs.14,68,800/-. Therefore, it is proper to award Rs.14,68,800/- towards “loss of future earning”. 19. So far as loss of income during the treatment is concerned, the Tribunal has noticed the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the appellant to come to the conclusion that the appellant might not have worked at least for six months. Even if such minimum period for treatment is accepted as six months, the appellant is entitled for a just and proper award of Rs.51,000/- under the head of “loss of income during the treatment”. 20. So far as medical expenses and other incidental charges are concerned, the Tribunal appreciated the different evidence and observed as follows: “iii)Towards medical expenses and other incidental charges: Petitioner contended that he has taken treatment in several hospitals. Initially he was taken to Mandya General Hospital. Later in private car he was taken to JSS Hospital, Mysore. On the same day he was taken to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore. He was operated on his right leg and discharged for higher treatment. He was admitted in Boring Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was paid Rs.5,000/- . From that hospital also he was discharged. Later he was admitted in St. John Hospital on 2.3.2003. He was operated on his hand, right leg, left leg, stomach. He was indoor patient for 2 months. Later he took treatment in Kempegowda Dental Hospital for mandible and he was indoor patient for 1 week. All his teeth were removed. He lost all teeth and left leg. He has become completely disabled. P.W.7 Doctor Natarajshekar of Kempegowda Hospital deposed that he treated his dental problems stated that on 9.7.2003 to 15.7.2003 he was indoor patient. All teeth were removed, decided to insert entire set. On 10.7.2003 he was operated and again on 4.9.2003 he was operated for 2nd time. In this connection he has produced Ex.P-5 wound certificate issued by St.John Medical Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.P-6 and P-7 is medical bills and Transporting charges. He has produced medical bills worth of Rs.1,85,628/- rounded off to Rs.1,86,000/- and transportation charges worth of Rs.27,230. Ex.P-9 to 16 case sheet, patient record, discharge summary, Ex.P-17 is the case sheet of St.John Medical College Hospital, Bangalore for having taken treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken treatment from 29.3.2003 to 20.4.2003. Others are ex-rays Ex.P-25 is KIMS Hospital records. He further produced Ex.P-26 cash bills worth of Rs.2,590/-. On going through records Ex.P-6 the petitioner has taken into consideration double of hospital bills, which ought to have been reduced, which comes to Rs.1,85,000/- and not 4,83,000/- as calculated. The bills are repeated as item No.8,18,19,34,36,60. The only final bill worth of Rs.73,000/- is shown but he has considered the interval bills also including the final bills it comes to Rs.1,85,628/-. On going through all the medical bills some of them are not supported with prescriptions and not properly explained by the petitioner. Having regard to all the circumstances and treatment taken by him in different hospitals he might have spent for medical expenses. So it is better to consider medical expenses at Rs.1,50,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P-7 transportation charges receipts have been produced, but person who provide vehicle is not mentioned. However he might have spent something for transportation. It is proper to consider Rs.10,000/- for transportation. He was in hospital and taken treatment, he might have spent attendant expenses and special diet, it is found just and proper to award Rs.10,000/- for the same P.W.7 Doctor stated that he has to undergo in future operation of mandible by spending Rs.1,50,000/- for insertion of implant since all the sets removed. X-ray shows fracture of cants of left side. There is permanent disability in the mouth. Considering all these aspects it is found that he requires future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, Petitioner is entitled for compensation under this head is Rs.2,00,000/-.” 21. From the evidence on record the following amounts towards different medical bills are undisputed:(1)The amounts paid during the treatment shows as interval bills and final billsRs. 1,86,000/-(2)Cash Bill (Exhibit P-26)Rs. 2,590/-In this background, the High Court and the Tribunal ought to have accepted the amount of Rs.1,86,000/- towards medical bills, apart from transportation charges. 22. If the aforesaid amount is taken into consideration towards the abovesaid heads, then as per High Court’s calculation the break-up of amounts is as follows: 1.Towards pain and sufferingsRs. 1,00,000/- (as awarded by High Court) 2.Towards medical expensesRs. 1,86,000/- (as determined above) 3.Towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant chargesRs. 40,000/- (as awarded by the High Court) 4.Towards loss of income during laid-up periodRs. 51,000/- (as determined Above) 5.Towards loss of amenitiesRs. 1,00,000/- (as awarded by the High Court) 6.Towards loss of future incomeRs. 14,68,800/- (as determined Above) 7.Towards future medical expensesRs. 30,000/- (as awarded by the High Court) TotalRs. 19,75,800/-

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. The PW.3, Doctor deposed that the right leg is 90% disabled and is permanently paralysed. The leg is amputated. Apart from this, his face has been deformed and is disabled to the extent of 50% to 60%, due to which he is not in a position to open his mouth fully. Therefore, it can safely be stated that the appellant is 90% permanently disabled to earn any income. The Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate the facts and fixed the disability at a lower level of 40% or 50%.18. Admitted, the appellant was about 32 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier of 16 to determine the compensation. Once the income is considered at Rs.8,500/- per month it comes to Rs.1,02,000/- per annum, 90% of the same comes to Rs.91,800/-. If the same is multiplied by 16 it comes to Rs.91,800/- x 16 = Rs.14,68,800/-. Therefore, it is proper to award Rs.14,68,800/- towards19. So far as loss of income during the treatment is concerned, the Tribunal has noticed the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the appellant to come to the conclusion that the appellant might not have worked at least for six months. Even if such minimum period for treatment is accepted as six months, the appellant is entitled for a just and proper award of Rs.51,000/- under the head ofSo far as medical expenses and other incidental charges are concerned, the Tribunal appreciated the different evidence and observed asmedical expenses and other incidentalcontended that he has taken treatment in several hospitals. Initially he was taken to Mandya General Hospital. Later in private car he was taken to JSS Hospital, Mysore. On the same day he was taken to Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore. He was operated on his right leg and discharged for higher treatment. He was admitted in Boring Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was paid Rs.5,000/- . From that hospital also he was discharged. Later he was admitted in St. John Hospital on 2.3.2003. He was operated on his hand, right leg, left leg, stomach. He was indoor patient for 2 months. Later he took treatment in Kempegowda Dental Hospital for mandible and he was indoor patient for 1 week. All his teeth were removed. He lost all teeth and left leg. He has become completely disabled. P.W.7 Doctor Natarajshekar of Kempegowda Hospital deposed that he treated his dental problems stated that on 9.7.2003 to 15.7.2003 he was indoor patient. All teeth were removed, decided to insert entire set. On 10.7.2003 he was operated and again on 4.9.2003 he was operated for 2nd time. In this connection he has produced Ex.P-5 wound certificate issued by St.John Medical Hospital, Bangalore, Ex.P-6 and P-7 is medical bills and Transporting charges. He has produced medical bills worth of Rs.1,85,628/- rounded off to Rs.1,86,000/- and transportation charges worth of Rs.27,230. Ex.P-9 to 16 case sheet, patient record, discharge summary, Ex.P-17 is the case sheet of St.John Medical College Hospital, Bangalore for having taken treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken treatment from 2.3.2003 to 28.4.2003 and also taken treatment from 29.3.2003 to 20.4.2003. Others are ex-rays Ex.P-25 is KIMS Hospital records. He further produced Ex.P-26 cash bills worth of Rs.2,590/-. On going through records Ex.P-6 the petitioner has taken into consideration double of hospital bills, which ought to have been reduced, which comes to Rs.1,85,000/- and not 4,83,000/- as calculated. The bills are repeated as item No.8,18,19,34,36,60. The only final bill worth of Rs.73,000/- is shown but he has considered the interval bills also including the final bills it comes to Rs.1,85,628/-. On going through all the medical bills some of them are not supported with prescriptions and not properly explained by the petitioner. Having regard to all the circumstances and treatment taken by him in different hospitals he might have spent for medical expenses. So it is better to consider medical expenses at Rs.1,50,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P-7 transportation charges receipts have been produced, but person who provide vehicle is not mentioned. However he might have spent something for transportation. It is proper to consider Rs.10,000/- for transportation. He was in hospital and taken treatment, he might have spent attendant expenses and special diet, it is found just and proper to award Rs.10,000/- for the same P.W.7 Doctor stated that he has to undergo in future operation of mandible by spending Rs.1,50,000/- for insertion of implant since all the sets removed. X-ray shows fracture of cants of left side. There is permanent disability in the mouth. Considering all these aspects it is found that he requires future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, Petitioner is entitled for compensation under this head is Rs.2,00,000/-.From the evidence on record the following amounts towards different medical bills are undisputed:(1)The amounts paid during the treatment shows as interval bills and final billsRs. 1,86,000/-(2)Cash Bill (Exhibit P-26)Rs. 2,590/-In this background, the High Court and the Tribunal ought to have accepted the amount of Rs.1,86,000/- towards medical bills, apart from transportation charges.