Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has sustained the following fracture:

(a) Comminuted fracture both sacral alea with displacement,

(b) Comminuted fracture of S1 with disruption of canal,

(c) Comminuted fracture both superior and inferior pubic rami on both side,

(d) pubic symphysis disruption and

(e) Uretharal injury. "Erectile dysfunction and cannot pass urine".

16. In support of his contention, the claimant examined himself as PW-1. He has stated on oath that he has sustained the aforesaid fractures. In support of his claim, he has examined the Doctors as PWs.2 and 3. PW- 2 has stated on oath that the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 18% to the right lower limb and 15% to the left lower limb. But he is not the treated doctor. PW-3 has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to an extent of 25%. Even he is not a treated doctor.

18. Taking into consideration the income, age and percentage of disability as Rs.5,500/- x12x18x22/100, we are of the considered opinion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,61,360/- towards loss of future income.

19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards marriage prospects, as the appellant has suffered erectile dysfunction and cannot pass urine. The Tribunal without taking into consideration all these material on record, has proceeded to award the compensation under other heads which is unreasonable and on the lower side.