Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 24 (RAJ)

Nathu Lal v. Heera Lal

2014-01-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.03.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (the Tribunal), whereby, for the injuries suffered by claimant Nathu Lal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,300/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation (the application) i.e. 17.10.2006. 2. The Tribunal while considering the quantum of compensation, discarded Bills (Exhibit - 17 to 27), which it was claimed that after a passage of two months from the date of accident, the appellant got himself re-examined and was required to undergo treatment. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that from the Injury Report at the time of accident only simple injuries have been indicated and if the claimant had suffered fracture at the time of the said accident, the Injury Report would have indicated the same. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was not justified on part of the Tribunal to reject the said Bills inasmuch as, it is clearly indicated that the injury was about two months old, which coincided with the date of accident. 4. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record. 5. From the record, it is apparent that at the time of accident, the Injury Report did not indicate any fracture. As to what transpired between the date of accident and after two months when the so called fracture has been indicated is not known and, therefore, the said treatment vide Exhibit - 17 to 27 cannot be attributed to be said accident and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard does not call for any interference. 6. So far as the permanent disablement suffered by the appellant is concerned, it is not indicated as to how the said disablement has affected his earning capacity and, therefore merely suffering permanent disablement cannot ipso facto lead to grant of compensation.Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******