F.A.O. No. 733 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 733 of 1996 Date of Decision: 12 - 3 - 2010 Narinder Kumar Dixit .....Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Manish Deswal, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The appellant was aged about 23 years on the date of accident i.e. 11.3.1991. He was driving a scooter bearing registration No.HR-03- 0927 which was hit by a bus bearing registration No.HR-02-0301 of Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar Depot, driven by Ram Lal - respondent No.3. The bus was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. - respondent No.4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Tribunal') came to the conclusion that driver of the F.A.O. No. 733 of 1996 [2] bus and the claimant were jointly responsible for the accident. It was held to be a case of contributory negligence. The responsibility of the driver of the bus in causing the accident was determined to be 66%, whereas the claimant was held responsible to the extent of 34% only. It has come in evidence that the appellant had passed a diploma in Restaurant Counter Service from Food Craft Institute, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The Tribunal had recorded the disability of 10%. Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed this finding being contrary to the record. The appellant examined Dr.M.S.Gupta, Medical Superintendent, Saket Hospital, Panchkula as AW2, who stated that the appellant suffered 30% permanent partial disability due to shortening of 4 cms. of a leg and there was restriction of movement of the knee. The appellant had suffered a fracture of right femur and the same was compound grade 1. The fact remains that there was shortening of 4 cms. of the leg and movement of the knee was restricted. Without applying any yardstick by rule of thumb, the Tribunal had determined Rs.28,334/- as compensation towards the disability. This Court is of the view that the appellant who had to work in the hospitality industry in a hotel line had suffered his career growth prospectus, as a man with a limb, in the hospitality industry may have eclipsed his advancement in the career. Further more, restricted movement of the knee would have made difficult for the appellant to squat and perform other day to day chores. Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellant be awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- in lump sum for the disability suffered by him, taking into consideration contributory negligence also. Further more, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards repair of the scooter. Counsel for the F.A.O. No. 733 of 1996 [3] appellant submits that as per records, Rs.7,000/- were incurred on the repair of the scooter. Nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal on this count. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the appellant on account of repair of the scooter. Counsel further submits that no amount has been awarded towards the special diet. Under this head also, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded to the appellant. Mr.Jatinder Kumar, counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company submits that the enhancement is not commensurate to the disability of the claimant-appellant. However, counsel has not spelt any reason in support of this contention. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the compensation for disability is enhanced from Rs.28,334/- to Rs.60,000/-. Further, Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards scooter repair and special diet. The interest on the enhanced amount so awarded shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum till the year 2000. Thereafter, the interest will be calculated at the rate of 6% per annum. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 12, 2010. JUDGE RC