FAO No. 2438 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2438 of 2010 Date of decision June 2, 2011 Nitish Kumar ....... Appellant Versus Madan Lal and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 appeal is for enhancement of claim for injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant was a male aged 16 years and he was said to have been injured when he was standing near a road where the first respondent by his rash and negligent driving of the scooter dashed against him that resulted in grievous injuries. The appellant did no more than producing a copy of a certificate showing that the disability was 5% and he suffered fractures in the right leg. He was admitted in the hospital soon after the accident on 23.5.2005 and remained there for treatment for nearly 13 days. 2. The claimant did not produce the original certificate of disability nor did he examine the doctor who had given him the FAO No. 2438 of 2010 2 certificate. The Tribunal assessed `25,000/- as a compensation payable; for the permanent disability assessed at `10,000/- and pain and suffering and misc. expenses assessed at `15,000/-. Counsel appearing for the appellant states that the Tribunal has not assessed the medical expenses, transport, special diet and future prospects. 3. Counsel for the respondent states that the appellant has produced false evidence before the Court by introducing his father as an eye witness although it was originally stated that one Balbir Singh was standing by him and he was the eye witness. The Tribunal had originally closed the evidence and dismissed the case but in appeal to this Court secured an order of remand but when fresh opportunity given to him, he fabricated the evidence of his own father to let in false evidence. 4. I will not take this issue of the proof of negligence as too serious to contend since it was brought out that at the trial that the first respondent was convicted by the Criminal Court for rash and negligent driving and causing hurt under Section 279 and 338 IPC. While a judgment of Criminal Court acquitting an accused driver may not conclude the issue relating to the rash and negligent driving before the Tribunal, the finding of guilt by a Criminal Court is relevant before the Tribunal. The reason is obvious, for, a Criminal Court sets extracting standard of proof for criminal culpability. If on evidence the Criminal Court had assessed that the driver was negligent, it was surely a relevant fact before a Tribunal which places not an extracting standard of proof as in a Criminal trial but only looks for preponderance of probabilities. The finding of negligence is therefore, perfectly justified. 5. Even as regards the assessment of compensation, I do not think that there is anything worthwhile for the appellant to argue since before the Tribunal he produced no evidence except a copy of the certificate which was not even accepted as evidence. FAO No. 2438 of 2010 3 The Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- for disability. There is no proof that the disability had impacted in any way the earning skills or affected the appellant in his studies or work. I cannot accommodate a plea for future prospects in a situation where the evidence was very deficient. The claims for medical expenses, transport or diet charges are pecuniary heads of claim for which evidence is necessary. The appellant is unable to place before me any particular evidence that would justify the claim for enhancement. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 2, 2011 archana