IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.40-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1590 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:17.11.2010 Sukhdev Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others ....Appellants versus Mohinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4. None for respondents 1, 2 , 3 and 6. ---- 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. A retired army personnel, who was later working as an accountant in an army canteen, drawing an income of Rs.1,685/-, suffered injuries in an accident that resulted in amputation below elbow at the first time when he remained admitted from 04.09.1991 to 27.10.1991 and a second operation had to be performed on 17.02.1992 when the stump that remained was also amputated and he had an amputation through shoulder joint and discharged on 19.02.1992. The claimant gave evidence that he had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000 to 26,000/- but produced bills only to the tune of Rs.1,600/- Cross Objection No.40-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1590 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - for three days hospitalization. The Tribunal assessed Rs.90,000/- for the disability suffered and provided for Rs.10,000/- for special diet and for future loss of income and awarded Rs.1 lakh. 2. To say the least the method of assessment of compensation by the Tribunal was grossly erroneous and has not followed any known legal principle involved in assessment of compensation for injuries. This Court has dealt in elaborate detail the mode of assessment of compensation for injuries in FAO No.422 of 1993, decided on 12.11.2010 titled as 'Madan Lal Papneja Versus State of Haryana and others'. 3. Suffice it to say that I will adopt the principle as enunciated in the above judgment. It is most desirable that appropriate evidence through vouchers are produced for medical expenses. All pecuniary heads of compensation must be proved without leaving any aspect for conjecture for a Tribunal. Between what is desirable and what is invariably done in the Tribunal, there is hiatus and I will only believe that the litigants and the bar are sufficiently sensitized to allow appropriate documentary proof on heads of claim which surely admit of such documentary evidence. For loss of earning for the period of treatment for fur months, I will provide for Rs.6,800/- (1,700 x 4=6,800). Even in the absence of such evidence for the period of hospitalization from 04.09.1991 to 27.10.1991, I am prepared to take the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the claimant when he gave evidence to the effect that he had spent Rs.25,000 to 26,000/-, I will take Rs.25,000/- as the expenses for two spells of treatments for a hospital that has Cross Objection No.40-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1590 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - resulted in amputation of the entire hand through the shoulder. The Tribunal has added Rs.10,000/- as special diet and future loss, I will provide for the special diet itself at Rs.10,000/- and will proceed to determine the future loss in the succeeding para. 4. There is a component of pain and suffering for a person, who has suffered a privation of a hand and also loss of amenities of life of a person who has lost his hand. Towards pain and suffering for surgical removal of hand by two operations, I will provide for Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,500 x 2= 25,000/-). In the judgment referred to above, I have proposed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for an adult, who suffers a privation of a hand, for disability and loss of amenities of life. The loss of earning capacity shall be 90% as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act and taking the income to be Rs.1,685/- for a person, who was 48 years of age, I will provide for prospect of 30% increase and take the average income to be Rs.2,200/-. I will take 90% of the same as the resultant loss of earning capacity and take the monthly loss of Rs.1,980/- and yearly loss at Rs.23,760/-. He was aged 48 years and I will apply a multiplier of 13 and find the loss of future earning to be Rs.3,08,880/-. The total compensation will be Rs.4,25,680/-. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability for the enhanced amount shall be the same as determined by the Tribunal as respondents 1, 4 and 6. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Cross Objection No.40-CII of 1993 in/and FAO No.1590 of 1992 (O&M) - 4 - 6. There is no representation for the respondents 1 and 6-cross objectors. Cross objection is, accordingly, dismissed for default. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.11.2010 sanjeev