Decided on March 22,1999

GOGA Appellant
NAND GOPAL Respondents


- (1.) THE appellant was twelve years of age when he suffered an injury which totally disfigured and disabled his left arm below the elbow joint. This disablement was permanent. As per the doctor, who appeared as a witness, the appellants injury was such that it was not possible for him to open his palm. He had lost grip to move it forward and backward. The opinion expressed was that his arm has become totally functionless. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - by way of compensation was a reasonable figure. The total amount of compensation to which the appellant was legally held entitled to was found to be Rs. 86,000/ -. This was divided as under: Compensation for pain, suffering and shock: Rs. 10,000/ - Compensation for disfiguration: Rs. 25,000/ - Compensation for loss of amenities of life such as loss of prospects of marriage: Rs. 5,000/ - Compensation for injuries : Rs. 50,000/ -
(2.) EVEN though, the above opinion was expressed by the Tribunal, the total amount which was awarded to the appellant was at Rs. 46,000/ -. This was the amount claimed by him in the application seeking compensation. Thus, even though, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amount which could be legally awarded was much more but as the claimant had restricted his claim to only Rs. 46,000/ -, only that much amount was allowed as compensation, the appellant challenged this award in this court. The appeal was dismissed holding that the view expressed by the Tribunal calls for no interference. Not satisfied with that, the appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that If the appellant -claimant restricts his claim to a particular figure, then the compensation has necessarily to be fixed as per the claim projected by the claimant. Thus, what is urged is that the claimant is bound by the facts and figures given by him vis -a -vis amount of claim and the Tribunal cannot fix a figure which would be the amount so assessed. The short question which is thus required to be seen at the outset is as to whether the Tribunal dealing with such matters has the requisite jurisdiction to award an amount which is more that what is claimed. The fact that the appellant was a minor at the time when the claim was made, is being projected. It is stated that if the interest of minor is not properly taken care of by his guardian, then it was the duty of the Tribunal to not to ignore this aspect of the matter.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.