IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1687 of 2003(O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2011 Raj Kumar ....Appellant versus Devi Dayal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejveer Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Saleem Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondents 2 and 3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal had a awarded compensation of Rs.3,08,000/- that included Rs.1,70,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.90,000/- for disability arising on account of the accident and Rs.8,000/- for loss of income for the period of his treatment. 2. The learned for the appellant would contend that the assessment of compensation for the disability is very low. The copy of the MLR showed that he had extensive injuries on his body. He had a FAO No.1687 of 2003(O&M) - 2 - fracture of the femur and he had been operated upon for reducing the fracture. He had also some exploratory lalparctomy and the doctor, who had issued the disability, had noticed also an operational scar present through the middle of anterior abdomen wall. Multiple fractures of the ribs had also been recorded. The functional disability of the leg which had an impairment by a shortening of the limb by 3 ½ inches and the stiffness of the fingers. He was stated to have difficulty in walking, sitting and squatting and the disability was assessed at 80%. 3. Unfortunately, there is literally no worthwhile evidence from the doctor elicited to gauge how this disability could have impaired his earning capacity in his factory. The claimant, who had given evidence that he had been running a business and that after his injuries, he was not able to carry on with the business, has not stated even the nature of business which he was carrying on. He had filed the income tax returns for the year 1995-96 that showed that the business profit which was taxable was Rs.46,321.50. His evidence was that after the injuries, he has not been able to attend his business and he did not file the income tax returns for the next year. 4. The doctor's evidence suggests that he has been restored in his movement but he will have difficulties in his walking. In the manner of assessment of compensation, I would take Rs.50,000/- as the loss of income resulting from the prolonged period of treatment that started on 14.06.1997 and continued till December 1998. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.8,000/- and this would mean an additional amount of Rs.42,000/- The Tribunal itself has noticed that in the three hospitals FAO No.1687 of 2003(O&M) - 3 - that he had been taking treatment, the total number of days of treatment was 76. Apart from the loss of income, I would also provide for loss of earning capacity by taking the disability resulting from his accident at 25%. Having regard to the fact that he was 45 years of age, I will take the multiplier as 14 and take the loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,75,000/-. The amount of Rs.90,000/- determined by the Tribunal for disability is retained for the inconvenience and the loss of amenities that must have resulted to him on account of his disability arising from the injuries which consists of his difficulty in walking, sitting and squatting. The overall compensation will, therefore, stand increased by Rs.2,17,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal already. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.02.2011 sanjeev