IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1492-A of 1992 Date of decision February 16 , 2011 Giani Ram ....... Appellant Versus Baljit Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. N. K. Khosla , Advocate for the insurance Company-respondent No.3. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. **** 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 in an accident that had took place on 15.8.1989. The Tribunal found that the driver of the car to be responsible for the accident and the claimant had been hit by the moving vehicle when he was attempting to cross the road. He was 50 years of age and his evidence was that he used to attend agricultural operations and earned about `15-20,000/- per year. The Tribunal held that there was no proof for the same and took his earning to be `5,000/- per month prior to the accident. The accident had caused 25% disability at the left forearm and 25% disability for the left lower limb. The Tribunal took this disability as causing 50% loss of earning capacity and adopted a multiplier of 8 to provide the compensation of `24,000/- as going towards his loss of future earning, it added `5,000/- for pain and suffering and `3,000/- for treatment expenses. A fracture which did not unite and which had left some deformity cannot result in loss of earning capacity as high as 50% as taken by the Tribunal. A functional disability of an organ could not have been treated as resulting in a like percentage of loss of earning at all times. The assessment of an amount of `24,000/- for loss of earning was certainly high but the over all compensation will seem to be just, for the Tribunal had awarded a modest amount of `5,000/- towards pain and suffering when a person had fracture of both lower limb and the upper arm. As regards the medical expenses he contended that he has spent `20,000/- but no bills had been produced and the Tribunal took that he would have spent at least `3,000/- towards medical expenses. The over all compensation of `32,000/- in my view, was appropriate and I find no materials to enhance the same. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant but the counsel for the respondent is present, I cannot allow this case to be kept pending for addressing the minor issue relating to compensation for injury resulting in fracture that took place more than two decades back. I have therefore proceeded to examine the case on merits and have dismissed the same. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 16, 2011 archana