Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has grossly erred in ignoring the medical evidence let in by the appellant. Though PW.2 is not a neurosurgeon, however, his evidence is found to be too crucial to be ignored. In disability certificate, which is evidenced at Ex.P12, he has clearly opined that because of severe head injury, the appellant has incurred a motor system disability and that has resulted in complete paralysis of left upper limb.

5. Interestingly, the respondent - Corporation except denial, no specific questions are posed to the NC: 2024:KHC-K:7651 doctor, who is examined as PW.2 to counter disability certificate. Insofar as appellant having suffered complete paralysis to his left upper limb, the respondent - Corporation has also not posed any specific questions to the appellant herein, who is examined as PW.1. The Corporation had an opportunity to counter the disability certificate insofar as the paralysis to left upper limb suffered by the appellant on account of grievous injury to the head. This medical evidence let in by appellant has gone unchallenged. Though this Court is not inclined to accept the disability assessed by the doctor examined as PW.2, having regard to the fact that the appellant has suffered complete paralysis to left upper limb, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in not paying compensation under the head of loss of future income. Even one third of the disability determined by the doctor is ignored, the fact that there is complete paralysis of left upper limb, this Court is compelled to assess the disability suffered by the appellant at 20%.