FAO No. of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 670 of 2011 Date of decision May 24, 2011 Nirmal Singh ....... Appellant Versus Sucha Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. J. S. Saneta, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 compensation for injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had amputation of toe and had fracture of his leg. For the fracture the doctor had assessed the disability at 54% which I would assume to be a functional disability over a period of time. It is not clear from the evidence as to which toe was amputated but assuming the amputation was of big toe since the Workmen Compensation Act provides for highest percentage for loss of a big toe, I am prepared to take that as amputation of the big toe, the loss of earning capacity was 14%. The Tribunal has assessed compensation at `1,68,000/- for permanent disability and has also independently provided for future diminution of earning at `75,000/-. The Tribunal has also covered the entire medical bills and has granted `5,000/- towards loss of income, 5,000/- for attendant charges and `5,000/- for special diet. 2. A fracture and amputation can cause severe pain FAO No. of 2011 2 and suffering and the Tribunal had awarded `20,000/- for in a case where injuries resulted in disability. The component of disability independently of loss of earning capacity could only be for loss of amenities and the Tribunal has provided for `1,68,000/-for a fracture and amputation I would understand that it duly factors element of loss of earning capacity as well. If the scale of compensation for determination of loss of earning capacity must be through what is established under Workmen Compensation Act, the loss could not have been more than `87,500/-, assuming the average earning of the claim to be `3,000/- per month and a multiplier of 17 were to be adopted for a person who was aged 30 years. The provision for `1,68,000/- would adequately cover even the so called inadequate assessment made for the claim for various heads such as loss of income which the learned counsel would state must have been taken for six months and attendant charges could have been `15,000/- instead of `5,000/- and transportation must have been provided for at `10,000/- and special diet must have been provided for `15,000/-. Even if these amounts are to be added, it would still be sufficiently covered for the assessment which the Tribunal had made at `1,68,000/- and providing for future diminution in earning capacity at `75,000/-. The over all compensation of assessment made is more than what is appropriate and just in the given set of facts and circumstances and I find no reason to interfere with the same for enhancement. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 24, 2011 archana