FAO No.2106 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj. No.11-CII of 1999 and FAO No.2106 of 1998 Date of Decision. 10.11.2010 Constable Dharam Pal (No.1145) son of Sh. Vishwa Nath, resident of House No.15, Double Storey, New Police Lines, Patiala (Punjab) ......Appellant Versus Tejinder Singh, alias Jatinder Singh son of Harminder Singh and others ......Respondents 2. X Obj No.10-CII of 1999 and FAO No.2107 of 1998 Pawan Kumar son of late Sh. Piare Lal r/o H.No.68, Street No.2, New Bishan Nagar, Patiala ......Appellant Versus Tejinder Singh, alias Jatinder Singh son of Harminder Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. The claimant has preferred the appeal in FAO No.2106 of 1998 for enhancement for injury suffered in a motor accident. The FAO No.2106 of 1998 -2- Tribunal has awarded Rs.34,000/-. The claimant had fracture of both bones of the right leg and fracture of the right fore-arm. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. I would provide for Rs.7,500/- as pain and suffering for each fracture of the leg and the fore-arm. I would provide for Rs.15,000/-, which will be an addition of Rs.10,000/- over what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had already granted Rs.22,847/- towards medical expenses, which I shall retain. The compensation for loss of enjoyment of life was provided at Rs.5,000/-, which I shall also retain. The Tribunal had provided for loss of leave for six days at Rs.1,000/-. The contention is that he had been on leave for two months without pay and his monthly pay was Rs.4,000/-. I will take the loss to be Rs.8,000/- and provide for an additional amount of Rs.7,000/- over what has been awarded. 2. Learned counsel seeks for compensation to be provided for transportation and attendant charges. Pecuniary heads of claim will be possible only if there is appropriate evidence therefor. I cannot provide for any of those pecuniary heads in the absence of any evidence at all. The appeal in FAO No.2106 of 1998 for enhancement is partly allowed providing for an additional amount of Rs.17,000/- in the manner referred to above and the same shall also bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. As regards the claim for enhancement in FAO No.2107 of 1998, the claimant had suffered fractures in four places, fracture of the right femur, fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of both bones of right fore-arm, fracture of the right humerus. The Tribunal has provided for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering. FAO No.2106 of 1998 -3- I will take Rs.7,500/- for every fracture to provide for a homogeneity in approach in all matters relating to compensation for injuries and take the compensation for pain and suffering to be Rs.30,000/- that would amount to an increase of Rs.5,000/- over what has been awarded. The Tribunal has provided for compensation of Rs.60,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.25,000/- for loss of enjoyment of life. The learned counsel states that the loss of future earning must have been provided for at a rate higher than of what has been determined by the Tribunal. It has come by a measure of practice through Division Bench of this Court to provide for a compensation of Rs.2000/- for every percentage of disability. The counsel states that the percentage of disability has been assessed at 60% and therefore, the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- must be provided. If I take the approach of a rough and ready method of providing of compensation at Rs.2,000/- for every percentage, I cannot provide additionally for loss of earning or for loss of amenities of life, for a method of assessment of Rs.2,000/- per percentage must be a translation of financial equivalent of what the loss is towards income and how the amenities of life have been curtailed. After providing for a loss of enjoyment of life at Rs.25,000/- and due to permanent disability at Rs.60,000/-, there cannot be again a consideration for claim for future expenses. I would understand the compensation assessed for permanent disability itself to factor the issue of loss of earning. However, if the amount has to be re-assessed in the manner in which the counsel argues for namely at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for every percentage, I will substitute the award made by the Tribunal for Rs.60,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.25,000/- towards FAO No.2106 of 1998 -4- enjoyment of life compositely to yield to Rs.1,20,000/- @ Rs.2,000/- for every percentage. The amount awarded towards expenditure for medical treatment at Rs.94,000/- is retained and the compensation for loss of leave assessed at Rs.20,000/- is also retained. In effect, the amount of compensation that will be in addition to what has been determined by the Tribunal will be Rs.5,000/- additionally for pain and suffering and Rs.35,000/- towards disability and loss of earning. In sum, the claimant shall be entitled to an addition of Rs.40,000/- with interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 4. The counsel also contends that no provision has been made for transport expenses. I find the evidence was that he was spending Rs.300/- every day for 17 days to go in a taxi from his house to the hospital. The Tribunal found that to be excessive and provided for 50% of the amount and added the said figure towards the medical expenses and granted compensation therefor. I have already retained the compensation for medical expenses and therefore, having regard to the fact that the transportation charges are added within the medical expenses by the Tribunal, I see no scope for entertaining the claim as a separate head. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and the cross objections are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 10, 2010 Pankaj*