IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.754 of 1992(O&M) Date of decision:03.02.2011 Mahesh Chander ....Appellant versus Union of India and others ....Respondents II. FAO No.1066 of 1992(O&M) Union of India and another ....Appellants versus Mahesh Chander and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant in FAO No.754 of 1992 and for respondents in FAO No.1066 of 1992. Mr.Ashiwine Kumar Bansal, Senior counsel for the appellants in FAO No.1066 of 1992 and for respondents in FAO No.754 of 1992. ---- 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. Both the appeals are connected arising out of the same accident. FAO No.754 of 1992 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for damages assessed for injuries suffered in an accident resulting in amputation of his leg from his thigh and FAO No.1066 of 1992 is by the Union denying the involvement of the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident. FAO No.754 of 1992(O&M) - 2 - 2. As regards the contention of the claimant regarding the involvement of the vehicle apart from the evidence of the claimant, a witness AW3 had deposed that he had reported the accident to the police when he saw an army vehicle dashing against the claimant, who was going on a cycle and causing serious injuries. He gave graphic details of the accident as to how the driver of the army vehicle ran away from the spot leaving the vehicle there, but yet another vehicle coming on the same time picked up the claimant from the spot and took him to the hospital. The identity of a vehicle as belonging to army by its distinct colour, unique number and the size cannot be easily missed even by a village rustic and the consistent evidence was the involvement of the army vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle gave evidence to the effect that he was going about that time in his vehicle when he saw the claimant in an injured state and, therefore, he had taken him to the hospital. This is not too different from how the claimant had given evidence. Even if the particular driver had not been involved, it bears out through the evidence that it was an army vehicle that was involved in the accident. I reject the plea urged on behalf of the Union that the vehicle had not been involved at all. I affirm the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the accident had resulted only by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Union and the liability as firmly established. 3. As regards the quantum, the reappraisal that case would require, would be the assessment of pain and suffering which the Tribunal had made at Rs.10,000/-, which I will increase to Rs.25,000/- and the loss of amenities of life due to operation which the Tribunal FAO No.754 of 1992(O&M) - 3 - assessed at Rs.20,000/-, which I will raised to Rs.50,000/-. Even as regards the assessment of earning power, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- which, in my view, is inadequate. I will take the 80% disability to have resulted in 80% of loss of earning capacity. There was evidence that he was a vegetable vender, earning Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,600/- per month. He stated that after the accident with an amputation, he was unable to attend to his work. I will, therefore, take the income at Rs.1,600/- as established and proceed to determine the future loss on the basis that the loss of earning capacity is 80%. The other heads of claim made by the Tribunal are retained. The compensation is reassessed and tabulated as below:- Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Age:33 Occupation: Vegetable vender. 1. Loss of earning 10,000 10,000 2. Medical expenses: medicines Hospital charges 10,000 10,000 Attendant charges special diet 5,000 5,000 3. Pain & Suffering- 10,000 25,000 per fracture/per surgery 4. Disability 80% 80% 5. Loss of earning capacity 50,000 2,45,760 6. Reduction in life 20,000 50,000 expectancy/loss of amenities 7. Future prospect 20,000 20,000 _______ _______ Total 1,25,000 3,65,760 4. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. FAO No.754 of 1992(O&M) - 4 - 5. The liability shall be on the Union. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed with the modification as referred to above and the appeal filed by the Union challenging the award is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.02.2011 sanjeev