FAO No.1379 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1379 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 17.05.2011 Avtar Singh s/o S Harman Singh, resident of VPO Chailan, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana ......Appellant Versus Jiwan Lal Sharma son of Sh. Sat Pal Sharma and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant is reported to have suffered a fracture in his leg that required a hospitalization and surgical intervention for reducing the fracture. The doctor, who was examined himself has certified that he had suffered 20% disability. 3. The contention was that he was running a business and engaged in agricultural work. He used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,075/- for the treatment, which was borne through bills and awarded Rs.40,000/- for disability, which I would understand as the component of loss of amenities of life for a person. The Tribunal has provided Rs.1 lac for pain and suffering, special diet and transportation. Learned counsel states that 20% disability has FAO No.1379 of 2011 (O&M) -2- severally hampered his earning prospects. He would also state that future medical expenses must have been also provided. The issue relating to any future treatment or that he would require any further operation must be borne through evidence from the doctor and it cannot be merely a matter of inference that in every case where a fracture is reduced by a surgery, the surgeries have to be performed periodically in future also, after the trial is concluded. Again a disability in order that it must be understood as causing the loss of earning power, the best evidence would be through the doctor, who can truly be in a position to say whether the particular disability for a person has rendered him incapable of doing work, which he would be accustomed to doing. Without any such evidence, there is no possibility for making an assessment of loss of earning power also for an agriculturist. The provision for Rs.1 lac for general damages for pain and suffering, special diet and transportation, in my view, would even compensate for any loss of provision for future expenses. The overall compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is adequate and just and would require no further intervention. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 17, 2011 Pankaj*