FAO No.3581 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3581 of 1999 Date of Decision. 12.10.2010 2. FAO No.3582 of 1999 Ramesh Kumar Son of Kashmir Singh, resident of village Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra ......Appellant Versus Kishan Singh son of Jassa Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 claim for enhancement of compensation is for injuries suffered by the claimant that has resulted in hospitalization and surgical intervention for reduction of fractures of the patella and right ankle. The doctor had assessed the disability at 26% that comprised of 15% for moderate limitation of motion of the right knee, 5% mild limitation of motion of right ankle and 6% for muscle weakness. 2. A leg and ankle, which has an impairment in motion or stiffness should be assessed with reference the functional abilities of the particular organ. The doctor has stated that he cannot state FAO No.3581 of 1999 -2- whether the disability is permanent or temporary. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation in this fashion:- a) Compensation on account of mental Rs.5,000/- shock, pain and suffering b) Compensation on account of Rs.18,000/- medical expenses c) Compensation on account of loss Rs.3,000/- d) Compensation on account of loss Rs.1,000/- of special diet expenses e) Compensation on account of loss of Rs.5,000/- future comforts and enjoyment on account of alleged permanent disability __________ Total Rs.32,000/- __________ 3. Of the heads of compensation, the learned counsel would stated that compensation on account of pain and suffering at Rs.5,000/- is inadequate. I accede to his plea and take pain and suffering for each one of the fracture to be Rs.7,500/- and provide to him an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. The compensation for medical expenses has been awarded at Rs.18,000/-, which I shall retain. The compensation on account of loss of special diet is awarded at Rs.1000/- and compensation on account of loss of future comforts and enjoyment is provided at Rs.5000/-. I will increase the same to another Rs.5,000/- and provide for an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation payable, which shall bear the interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. FAO No.4358 of 1999 is against the award of compensation for damage to the vehicle that was involved in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards the FAO No.3581 of 1999 -3- same. It has also observed while assessing the compensation that it was on the basis of admission in the cross-examination that the respondent offered to pay Rs.30,000/-. He had also asked for compensation for loss occasioned by his inability to put the vehicle to use. Such a head of claim is not possible before the Tribunal and the loss due to non-user could be enforced only by means of an independent suit and not by a petition before the Tribunal. It is a well established proposition that the claim for damages should be only for the actual damage caused to the vehicle and claim for loss of income arising out of damage to goods is inadmissible in the scheme of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal filed seeking for enhancement is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 12, 2010 Pankaj*