FAO No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.06.2011 Balbir Singh @ Kala son of S. Ruldu Singh, resident of village Deogarh, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala ......Appellant Versus Ram Parshad son of Rishi Pal and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 by the driver of a tractor, who was found to be responsible for causing accident with a motor cycle. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is three fold: (i), the driver of the motor cycle did not have valid driving licence and therefore, the Court must have seen that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident or in any event, the contributory negligence must have been cast; (ii), the quantum of compensation determined was on the higher side and the disability assessed at Rs.1,83,300/- even without examination of doctor was not appropriate and (iii) medical bills had not been proved properly. I do not find merit in any of these contentions. Adverting to the issue that the driver of the motor cycle did not have valid driving licence, the Tribunal has considered the evidence to find that the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent FAO No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) -2- and it was his negligence which caused the accident and referred to a decision of this Court in Suraj Bhan Vs. Satpal Singh 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 116, which held that mere fact that a person did not have a valid driving licence will not be a ground for driver of yet another vehicle to contend that he was rash and negligent in his driving and to seek for absolving the owner and driver of the offending vehicle of their liability to pay the compensation. I find that the Tribunal has dealt with this issue correctly and I find no reason to take a different view than what the Tribunal has taken. 2. As regards the issue of disability, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the disability had been assessed wrongly even without appropriate medical evidence. It must be noticed that the medical certificate, which was produced, was issued by the Medical Board and reliance on such a certificate even without calling the doctor is permissible as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) 1 SCC 343. The claimant had suffered a head injury and the disability certificate showed that he had monopercis with speech impairment and the disability was opined to be 61% permanent in nature. The Tribunal took the salary of the claimant to be Rs.3,000/- and calculated the 61% disability as also resulting in a similar percentage of loss of earning power and assessed a compensation of Rs.1,83,300/- Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the disability must be assessed at Rs.2,000/- for every percentage as held in some of the judgments of our Court. I reject this contention as untenable and unscientific. Disability that results in loss of earning capacity will have to be properly assessed by applying it against the FAO No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) -3- income earned and how there would be reduction of income by such disability and an appropriate multiplier has to be applied by estimating the loss for the rest of life. The disability has another component as well viz., loss of amenities of life even apart from the loss of earning capacity. In situations, where there is no likelihood of loss of earning capacity on account of the functional disability of the organ, then it would be perhaps possible to make a rough and ready estimate of assessing Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. In this case, I have held that on account of injuries, the claimant has suffered a serious impairment of his ability to speak and I have also assessed that the disability has resulted in like percentage of loss of earning capacity and I therefore, reject the argument that the assessment would be only at Rs.2,000/- per percentage and not in the manner that was done by the Tribunal. 3. As regards the contention of the counsel that the bills have not been proved properly it is not tenable and if the bills had been produced to the tune of Rs,20,105/- for the type of injuries which he had, I find no reason to suspect that it was exaggerated. The assessment of every one of the heads of the claim is appropriate and just and I find no scope for interference. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 01, 2011 Pankaj*