IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 906 of 1987 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Sh.Vijay Kumar. ....... Appellant through Shri Sanjay Kaushal,Advocate. Versus Punjab State Transport Department and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri N.S.Virk, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 through Nemo. Respondent no.5 through Shri D.R.Singla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against award dated 15.4.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.15 of 1985. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.1.1985. Both bones of his right leg were fractured. PW1-Dr.Amarjit Singh proved the aforesaid fact. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and F.A.O.No.906 of 1987 -2- .... negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver-Jagdish Kumar. It further held the appellant entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries suffered by him. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal with a prayer for enhancement thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. He further contended that it was established on record that a sum of Rs.22000/- was spent on the treatment of the appellant. It was submitted that due to injury, the leg of the appellant was shortened by 2” and he had to remain hospitalized for about two months and, therefore, the sum of Rs.28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of his suffering agony and loss in work is insufficient. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Annexure A, which is a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra after about one year of the accident, to contend that there was 60% disability suffered by the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 contended that the appellant cannot be said to have suffered the disability as pointed out above because the certificate, Annexure A1, was not proved in accordance with law and the same does not deserve to be looked into at this stage. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. F.A.O.No.906 of 1987 -3- .... The appellant is said to have spent Rs.22000/- on his medical treatment, which fact has been accepted by the Tribunal. It has also come on record that the appellant was hospitalized for almost two months as a result of which he remained immobilized. In this view of the matter, he is certainly entitled to compensation under various heads, such as, pain & suffering, loss of employment, expenses for attendant and charges for special diet. Although there is no conclusive evidence to prove the factum of permanent disability having been suffered by the appellant, yet, it is evident from the perusal of the impugned award that the Tribunal observed that the factum of shortening of leg of the appellant by 2” cannot be disbelieved. In any eventuality, some guess work has to be applied for assessing the compensation considering the fact that Annexure `A' indicates the existence of permanent disability having been suffered by the appellant. Accordingly, after considering the entire material on record, the appellant is held entitled to the following amount of compensation under various heads:- 1. Permanent disability = Rs.35000/- 2. Medical treatment = Rs.22000/- 3. Pain & suffering/ loss of employment = Rs.25,000/- 4. Special diet = Rs.5000/- 5. Expenses for attendant = Rs.6000/- Thus, a total compensation of Rs.93,000/- is awarded to the appellant. F.A.O.No.906 of 1987 -4- .... The enhanced compensation shall be payable to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been fixed by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. November 17,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge