FAO No.478 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.478 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION: December 21, 2010 MUKESH ...APPELLANT VERSUS KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. ALOK JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2, 4, 5, AND 6. MR. SUVIR DEWAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. MR. RAVINDER ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident. The details of injuries as seen through MRI Scan on 19.4.1994 is reproduced hereunder:- “MRI SCAN REPORT DATED 19.4.1994 MR imaging of the dorsal spine was performed using spin-echo and gradient echo (GRASS) pulse sequences. Serial sections were obtained in the sagittal and axial planes using a dedicated quadrature spine coil and special flow compensation techniques. The study revealed post traumatic fracture of D7 with posterior dislocation of vertebral body. The vertebral body and the neural arch both are involved. There is a chip fracture of postero inferior surface of D6 vertebral body, FAO No.478 of 2000 -2- which is also getting displaced posteriorly. The is causing marked estradural compression over thecal sac an the cord parenchyma. The cord above and below the site of compression (from D5 to D9) is showing edeama/contusion seen as low intense signal on T1 and hyperintense signal on T@* images. There is no well defined cord hematoma. No significant pre/para vertebral collection is seen. Note is made of bilateral pleural effusion.” 2. The opinion as found expressed after MRI Scan is also reproduced hereunder:- “OPINION: MR findings are suggestive of post traumatic fracture D6 & 7 with extradural compression and cord contusion. Electromyography Nerve Conduction Velocity ad Evoked Potentials Report dated 17.6.1994. SSEP could be normally elecitable from both upper limbs. No response could be obtained from both lower limbs.” 3. The Doctor who had been treating him has also been examined in this case, who has stated that the claimant's disability subsists and that on account of spinal injury he has suffered 100% disability. 4. The Tribunal while determining the compensation taken Rs.20,000/- as medical expenses, provided for miscellaneous expenses at Rs.5000/-, which I would understand as going towards special diet, Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- as going towards his loss of earning. There was evidence to the effect that he was running a FAO No.478 of 2000 -3- business and the business was also assessed to income tax. The Tribunal took the amount to be Rs.3000/- and the assessment of Rs.1,50,000/- was supposed to be the result of its consideration of his income as Rs.3000/-. In my view, the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It has not taken note of very serious spinal injury that has confined the claimant to bed for the rest of his life even in his young age of 28 years and robbed him of all the felicities of life. He has a young wife and three children and he would live through his life seeing the children grow with no assistance going from him, but having all persons attending to him for the rest of his life. 5. I would, therefore, proceed to examine the heads of the claim of compensation in the manner indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scale 265. I would retain the medical expenses provided at Rs.20,000/-, but for the attendant charges for the rest of his life of a person who is confined to bed, I would provide for a quantum that will throw a return of Rs.1000/- to him as the likely expense per month. I would take, therefore, the amount that would ensure the return by taking a multiplier of 18 and for attendant charges I would provide for Rs.2,16,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering and I will increase it to Rs.1 lac. The loss of earning capacity is 100% and I would adopt a multiplier of 18 for his age and take the loss of earning capacity as Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.3000/-x 12 x 18) for 100% disability. Towards the loss of amenities of life that he has suffered, I would make an additional assessment of Rs.1 lac. The over-all compensation shall, therefore, be 10,64,000/-. The amount over what the Tribunal has awarded, i.e. a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- shall bear interest @ 6% FAO No.478 of 2000 -4- from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be on respondent No.3-insurance company, as determined by the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. December 21, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE