FAO No. 1080 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1080 of 1998 Date of decision February 28, 2011 Harjinder Singh Bajaj ....... Appellant Versus Prem Chand and another ........Respondents FAO No. 905 of 1990 New India Assurance Company Ltd. And another ....... Appellants Versus Harjinder Singh Bajaj ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.1080 of 1998 and for respondents in FAO No. 905 of 1998. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi , Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.905 of 1998 and for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in FAO No.1080 of 1998. **** 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. The two appeals are connected, FAO No.1080 of 1998 seeking for enhancement of compensation and FAO No. 905 of 1990 is at the instance of the insurer and owner stating that the assessment of FAO No. 1080 of 1998 2 compensation is high and would require to be reduced. The joint appeal by the insurer and the insured are not competent in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Vs. N.K. Raju and another 2000(4) SCC 130. In terms of the ruling, learned counsel for the Insurance Company seeks for transposition of the insurer as a respondent and seeks permission to prosecute the appeal. FAO No. 905 of 1999 is an appeal by the insured. I accord for such a direction and direct the Registry to carry out the amendment in the Memo of Parties. 2. The accident had resulted out of a collision between the Maruti Van which the claimant was driving against the insured's car. It appears that the passengers in the Car had themselves filed claim petitions and the Tribunal had awarded compensation against the owner and the insurer of the car on the basis that the driver of the Car was responsible for the accident. It is argued by the counsel for the claimant that the awards had become final and the Insurance Company did not challenge the said awards. I will, therefore not entertain a plea for reappraisal regarding the issue of negligence. I will take that aspect as established against the driver of the vehicle. 3. The injuries that had been caused to the claimants were fracture of shaft of femur and fracture at the wrist and he had been hospitalized for about a month. The injuries had resulted in the shortening of the limb by 1/2”. He was a contractor by profession and for the loss of income during the period of his hospitalization the Tribunal had made the assessment and also granted compensation for `67,885/- for the medicines. According to the learned counsel for the claimant bills of `6,600/- towards taxi charges, `3900/- towards hotel expenses for staying in hotel during the time of his subsequent visit must be given to him. I will afford to him such expenses as well. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of `40,000/- for the two fractures and for the hospitalization FAO No. 1080 of 1998 3 which he had for over a month. I have tried to standardize the method of compensation for injuries in a decision of Madan Lal Papneja Vs. State of Haryana and others in FAO No. 422 of 1993, decided on 12.11.2010. I will reassess the compensation on the said basis and tabulate the compensation as below. The assessment of compensation for `30,000/- for the disability is compounded with loss of earning capacity for `1,15,000/-. I cannot find a basis for assumption that the fracture has impacted the earning skills, unless it is specifically spoken to by a claimant through appropriate evidence. The Tribunal has also awarded `80,000/- for engaging the driver in future on the basis that he cannot drive on account of his disability. The disability suggested at the trial through the examination of a doctor was he cannot squat and cannot drive a vehicle. I will take this to be a temporary, claim for even shortening of leg by 1/2” cannot disable a person to drive a vehicle for all times to come. I will make only provision for about `15,000/-. I will increase the inconvenience and loss of amenities for the injury suffered by him to `50,000/- and discard the entire element of future loss of earning of `1,50,000/- by the Tribunal. Age Period of hospitali zation 1 month Heads of claim Tribunal` High Court ` 1 Loss of income `23723/- `23,723/- 2 Medicines `67885/- `67885/- 3 Future operation charges `35,000/- `35,000/- 4 Transport and engaging a driver `80,000/- ` 25000/- + 5 Boarding and lodging 3900/- 6 Pain and suffering `40,000/- `20,000/- 7 Loss of dependency `1,50,000 8 Loss of amenities `30,000/- `50,000/- Total `4,26,608/- `2,24,808/- FAO No. 1080 of 1998 4 4. The appeal FAO No.1080 of 1998 is dismissed and the amount of compensation is reduced in the above manner in FAO No.905 of 1998. The latter is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 28, 2011 archana