IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.353 of 2005 Date of decision : September 17, 2010 Ram Pal Singh …Appellant. Versus Darshan Lal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Ms Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by injured-appellant Ram Pal Singh, for enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimant-appellant sustained fracture of right leg, while travelling by truck, belonging to respondent Darshan Lal, which met with an accident. Accident allegedly took place due to rash or negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Truck was insured with the National Insurance Company. Accident took place on 13th April, 2000. Injured was treated at a Private Hospital at Dehradun. His leg was operated upon thrice to correct the fracture. He remained admitted to the hospital at Dehradun three times. Initially from 13.4.2000 to 16.5.2000 and then from 20.7.2000 to 18.9.2000 and third time from Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 23.11.2000 to 16.12.2000, in connection with surgery and operations. 3. Learned Tribunal held that the accident had taken place, on account of rash or negligent driving of the truck and that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. It awarded a sum of Rs.62,600/-, on account of medical expenses, Rs.500/- on account of transport charges, another sum of Rs.5000/- for special diet and Rs.25,000/- as consolation compensation. Appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 5. Appellant proved a certificate Ex. PW-3/E to substantiate his plea that he has suffered permanent disability of 20%, on account of the fracture of leg. PW-3 Dr. Rajesh Maheshwari proved this certificate. 6. Learned Tribunal has not awarded anything, on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant, with the reasoning that the certificate does not appear to be genuine, as it is issued on the format of Medical Board of Zonal Hospital Nahan, though the certificate is issued by a Private Hospital at Dehradun. Learned Tribunal was not justified in doing so, because when PW-3 Dr. Rajesh Maheshwari, who proved the certificate, was in the witness- …3… box, no suggestion was thrown to him that the certificate was not genuine. As a matter of fact, he was not cross- examination as to the genuineness of the certificate. Unless the witness was questioned as to the genuineness of the certificate or asked to explain how the certificate was issued by a Private Hospital (in which he had been working), on the format of Medical Board of Zonal Hospital Nahan, the certificate ought not to have been disbelieved. As per this certificate, claimant-appellant suffered 20% permanent mild disability. This disability can be said to have resulted in the loss of earning capacity of the appellant, atleast to the extent of 10 per cent. 7. Insured-appellant was a student at the time of the accident and was not having any income. So, his income is to be presumed to be that of a labourer. Those days, a labourer used to get Rs.2,500/- per month. So, loss of future earning, on account of disability, is taken to be Rs.250/- per month and looking to the age of the appellant, which was 15 years at the relevant time, multiplier of 18 years’ purchase is applied and he is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.54,000/-, on account of loss of future earnings. Also, I feel that the appellant is entitled to enhancement in compensation, under the head ‘pain and suffering/consolation’, as he had to be operated upon thrice to correct the fracture of his leg. So, in my considered …4… view, atleast a sum of Rs.50,000/- was required to be paid to the appellant-claimant on this count. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- on this count. 8. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is accepted and the quantum of compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.79,000/-, or say Rs.80,000/-, and the Insurance Company, impleaded as respondent, is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of money, together with interest at rate of 7% per annum, from the date of the filing of the petition before the Tribunal to the date of its payment. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. September 17, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J