FAO No. 1271 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1271 of 1997 Date of decision April 4, 2011 Smt. Sangeeta Gupta ....... Appellant Versus Sajjan Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohinder Nain, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the appellant who was 31 years of age. In the same accident her husband had died which is the subject of adjudication in FAO No.1270 of 1997. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal provided as follows:- 1 Loss of income 7,742/- 2 Medical expenses `12,000/- 3 Permanent disability `25,000/- 4 Transportation charges `1,500/- 5 Extra diet `1500/- 6 Loss of happy married life and enjoyment in life `15,000/- FAO No. 1271 of 1997 2 1 Loss of income 7,742/- 7 Attendant charges `2,400/- Total `70,142/- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the assessment of `25,000/- towards permanent disability is grossly low in a case where the doctor had assessed her handicap due to impairment of nervous system to be 62.5%. The Tribunal while addressing the said issue has considered the fact that the doctor had stated that she had been on regular follow up with Neuro Surgery at PGI and she had a third nerve palsy and mild weakness of left hand grip. This, is found to be in disability certificate issued by a medical board and it is stated that it is likely to improve and even assessment of 62.5% was not stated to be permanent. It was in evidence that she was working in Mandi Board where her chances for promotion were on some selection basis but she had opted to take a job in Markfed in the establishment where her husband was working, after his death where the promotion was on the basis of seniority. Nothing is brought on record to show that there had been any loss of income prospect. On the other hand, she was assured of promotion on the basis of seniority. All this is only to say that she had not suffered any particular loss of earning capacity by virtue of injuries. The assessment of compensation for disability must be taken in such a context as a compensation for loss of amenities and reduction in life span. It is truly subjective and if a Tribunal had assessed the same at 25,000/- in the year 1997, I will not find this to be a occasion for making an enhancement. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 4, 2011 archana FAO No. 1271 of 1997 3