K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE case is of the year 1991 and there is no representation except for the counsel for the State. The accident relates to the year 1988 and I do not want to detain the case by an adjournment only for the absence of the counsel nor do I want to dismiss the case for non -prosecution. I proceed to examine the records with the assistance of the counsel for the State -one of the Respondents and proceed to determine the compensation on merits as follows.
(2.) THE claim is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. The Tribunal held that the claimant, who was a Head Constable and traveling in a bus, had suffered injuries only by the negligent driving of the truck, which was coming on the opposite direction and hitting at the rear side of the bus where the claimant was seated and he had injuries at his right elbow as a result of the impact of the truck on the bus. Dr. Ashok Arora had been examined to say that he had been initially treated conservatively but later when the pain did not subside and fracture did not unite, he performed the surgery on the right elbow and caused reduction of fracture by fixing a nail. The doctor assessed the disability of the arm as resulting in 30% permanent disability. Dr. C.R. Garg, who had initially treated him and who had carried out the x -ray, had given given evidence to the effect that he found fracture of the shaft humorous and dupper and of radius and ulna. The claimant himself had given evidence to the effect that he was unable to write with his hand and that he cannot carry weight of more than 1 kg. He had spoken about his initial period of hospitalization for 20 days and that he was taking treatment for about 8/9 months and had spent about Rs. 15,000/ -to Rs. 16,000/ -on medicines. He claimed that he had remained bedridden for 7 months and was not in a position to move frequently. The medical expenses were brought through exhibits A1 to A61.
(3.) IN the manner of determination of compensation, the Tribunal had provided for Rs. 5,000/ -as admissible having regards to the bills produced by him and I find no reason to increase the same. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 500/ -towards special diet, which I will raise to Rs. 2,500/ - having regard to the fact that he was taking treatment for 8/9 months. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation of Rs. 11,000/ -towards pain and suffering and I will increase it modestly to Rs. 15,000/ -having regard to the fact that there were two fractures and he had already undergone a surgery. Towards pain and suffering and loss of future prospect and promotion in service, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 17,500/ -, since he was a policeman and he had a risk of onerous duty to carry heavy things. The loss of earning capacity arising from his functional disability of the arm at 5% and having regard to the fact that there was evidence that he earning Rs. 2,000/ -per month. He was 38 years of age. The total compensation would come to Rs. 18,000/ -(2,000 x 5% x 12 x 15=18,000). The additional amount of Rs. 6,500/ -shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall on the owner and the insurer of the truck.;