FAO No. 376 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 376 of 2011 Date of decision April 18, 2011 Dinesh Kumar ....... Appellant Versus Sagarmal and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. M. S. Randhawa , Advocate for the appellants. **** 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 appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation of `1,50,000/- for a person who had suffered injuries in a motor accident. The Tribunal while determining the compensation had tabulated the various heads of claim as follows:- 2 Compensation on account of pain and sufferings `10,000/- 3 Compensation on account of medical expenses `50,000/- 4 Compensation on account of loss of amenities and loss of future income. `20,000/- 5 Compensation on account of special diet, attendant etc. `5,000/- 6 Compensation on account of expenses on transportation `5,000/- 7 Total `1,50,000/- 2. The only point urged in appeal by the counsel is FAO No. 376 of 2011 2 that for a 33% disability assessed, the Tribunal must have awarded compensation at `66,000/-. I cannot take this to be any proposition of law that the compensation shall be only be at `2,000/- for every percentage. It has come through some decisions that in the manner of assessment of disability that would mean loss of amenities in life, the compensation at the rate of `2,000/- could be provided. I will take this to be merely an individual exercising of discretion by the Court in a particular case and cannot see as emerging proposition of law. The method of assessment of compensation for injuries has been put on a screen in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another in 2010 Scale 265. The assessment of general and damages for non pecuniary heads will inevitably had spoken and degree of certainty that could be obtained would be whether the evidence is properly elicited through expert when a disability could be shown to impact the earning skills. In such a situation it will be possible to make an assessment to loss of earning capacity for a person. No such evidence is available. The Tribunal had assessed a compensation for `60,000/- towards the disability which I will understand as meaning in the loss of amenities to life for the inconvenience occurred, I cannot countenance the plea that by making a provision for `6,000/- additionally a scientific assessment must be taken to be established. I do not find this to be a tenable argument to sustain the appeal on this ground only. I find the overall compensation as reasonable in the manner tabulated above. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 18 , 2011 archana