IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.237 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:13.12.2010 Hawa Singh ....Appellant versus Ram Chander and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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 appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident by a person who was Constable and had suffered fracture of pelvis, fracture of acetebullum and injuries to the urethral region. There had been a primary management on his condition at Chandigarh where his fractures were reduced and he had been regularly taking treatment subsequently at the hospital at Jaipur and then at Hisar. The evidence of the doctor PW1 was to the effect that he had undergone two surgeries and to the question whether his impotency was caused due to his surgery, the doctor stated that he will not be in a position to say whether his surgery caused the impotency. It must be remembered the fact that he become impotent itself was not in question. FAO No.237 of 1996 (O&M) - 2 - 2. At the trial, the claimant had also filed a certificate issued by the Associate Professor of Urology, Urology Development & Research Centre, Jaipur that recorded the fact that he had first stage supra-pubic cystostomy and later on end to end urethroplastry was done. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the certificate produced by PW16 on the ground that no doctor, who had issued the certificate, was examined. In the manner of ascertainment of compensation, the Tribunal had provided for Rs.10,000/- for medicines, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for disability and Rs.5,000/- for miscellaneous charges. I would understand the miscellaneous charges to mean transport charges particularly having regard to the fact that he was taking treatment at Hisar, Jaipur and at Chandigarh and he must have travelled to these places for taking his treatment. For two fractures at pelvis and acetebullum, I would provide for Rs.7,500/- for each. For two surgical interventions, I would provide for an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- each. The total amount which I will provide for pain and suffering will be Rs.25,000/- against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant had also given evidence that he had become impotent and the doctor's evidence revealed that there was difficulty in passing urine and he would require followup treatment for urethral dilatation. He was aged 44 years and the Tribunal said that since he was a middle age person, the fact that he would become impotent is irrelevant. I will hold this to be insensitive approach to a virile person, who was working in the police constabulary. I will afford to him Rs.1 lakh towards loss of amenities of life and for serious disability which he had suffered against Rs.15,000/- awarded by FAO No.237 of 1996 (O&M) - 3 - the Tribunal, I will retain Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses which the Tribunal already assessed and since there is no evidence whether the injury had in any way impacted his employment and his prospects of his earning power, I will afford no compensation towards the same. In all, the total amount of compensation will be Rs.1,40,000/- against Rs.35,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The amount in excess over what was determined by the Tribunal already shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and the liability shall be on the Insurance Company. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.12.2010 sanjeev