Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is the further case of the petitinor that, inspite of best treatment taken, the petitioner is suffering with permanent disability, he is not able to stand or walk without support and also longer duration, cannot climb stairs, cannot use Indian type of toilet, there is restriction of movements in his right knee and hip joint and he cannot bend his right leg backward and forward and confined to bed. At the time of accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, working as Material Maintenance Supervisor at Narayana PU College and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. After the accident he is not able to attend his work and lost salary. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 and the police have registered the case against the said driver. Hence, the petitioner requested to pass the award as prayed.

17. The petitioner has also examined Dr. Ramachandra, Assistant Professor of Orthopedics at Victoria Hospital as P.W.3. P.W.3 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. He has stated that, as per oral statement and medical records the petitioner had med with an accident on 19.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., and it is diagnosed that, type-1 open (compound) fracture severally comminuted distal femur right sustained by the petitioner and open reduction internal fixation with distal femoral LCP (locking compression plate) with bone grafting done on 21.02.2017 and discharged on 01.03.2017. Further stated that, the petitioner had admitted for the second time on 28.03.2017 and diagnosed fracture distal femoral LCP in situ, infective wound over distal femur-right, treated conservatively and discharged on 01.04.2017. He has stated that, for the third time the petitioner was admitted on 31.05.2017 and diagnosed infective-nonunion distal femur right, operation of implant removal and debridement done on 01.06.2017 and discharged on 05.06.2017. He has stated that, for the 4 th time admission of the petitioner at B.I.R.R.D. Hospital at Tirupathi on 26.06.2017, it is diagnosed the Osteomyelitis right distal femur, operation done are debridement + Ortofix application done on 17.07.2017 to the right femur corticotomy done on 09.08.2017 and he was discharged on 01.09.2017. P.W.3 stated that, recently he examined the petitioner at Victoria Hospital on 29.09.2018 exclusively for disability assessment, his OPD number is 411874. On radiological examination it reveals that, type-1 compound severally comminuted distal femur fracture right shows gross mal union with LRS frame in situ. The petitioner suffers 55.4% of disability of right lower limb and the permanent residual physical disability of about 27.7% of whole body. P.W.3 stated that, the petitioner is said to be working as material maintenance supervisor at the time of accident and this disability will greatly affect his avocation. P.W.3 has produced OPD Book and X-ray, which are marked at Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. P.W.3 has been cross-examined by the 2nd respondent's counsel. In the cross-examination he has denied all the suggestion made to him. He sates that, he has not treated the petitioner personally, but on the basis of discharge summaries he has assessed the disability. He has denied the suggestion made to him that, the fractures are united but he has falsely deposed the disability. He has stated that, the fractures are mal untied (ವಕ ಕವಗ ಕಕಡಕಕಕಡದ/.

19. The petitioner has stated that at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy, working as a material maintenance supervisor at Narayana PU College, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. On account of accidental injuries, he is unable to continue his earlier work as it involves extensive traveling and physical fitness and lost his earnings for the rest of his life. P.W.1 stated that, the disability is greatly coming in the way of his day to day activities and avocation. With respect to the same, the petitioner has not produced any documents. Therefore, I would like to take the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month. With regard to age, petitioner has not produced any documents. The medical records discloses that, the age of the petitioner is 35 years at the time of accident. So as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 35 years and same is taken as age of the petitioner. The appropriate multiplier for the age group over 30 to 35 is '16'. Thus, the calculation for loss of his future earnings would works out to Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 16 X 19% =Rs.3,64,800/-. Hence the petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,64,800/- under the head loss of future earnings.