IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1269 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:11.03.2011 Raj Kanwar ....Appellant versus The Union of India and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ---- 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 compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. He had fracture of both bones of his left leg and it was reduced by surgery but ultimately the injuries had left him with shortening of limb by 1 cm. He had been immediately admitted in the hospital on 05.05.1986 where he remained admitted till 10.05.1986 and later shifted to Amritsar where he was taking treatment from 14.05.1986 to 14.07.1986. FAO No.1269 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - 2 The Tribunal entered rather an inconsistent finding in holding that the accident had not been shown to have resulted of any negligence on the part of the driver of the army truck but at the same time also awarded compensation for Rs.55,000/- against the Union which was the owner of the truck. The accident is said to have taken place when the army truck was taking a turn from the main road to proceed towards the army station and a scooterist coming along the main road struck against the middle of the truck. I am not going to examine the issue of who was negligent between the scooterist and the army driver, for, as far as the pillion rider was concerned, it was the case of composite negligence and a right of enforcement of the claim was available in law to proceed against anyone of the tort feasors. The Tribunal ought to have, therefore, found that the claimant was entitled to maintain the petition against the Union and secure the compensation in full. 3. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal had already awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income which I understand is the loss arising out of the disability suffered by the claimant. The claimant was past 60 and he was said to be surveyor in the Insurance Company. He stated that on account of the accident, he had purchased a car with loan from a bank and has availed the services of a driver and two assistants to carry out the survey work. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- which I would understand as including the amount towards the loss of amenities and the loss of earning power. The heads of claim which had not been answered for which I would make additional award would be the attendant charges for the hospitalization for two months which I will award at Rs.2,000/-, FAO No.1269 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - Rs.2,000/- towards special diet, Rs.5,000/- for transportation and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. In all, there will be an additional award of Rs.96,000/- which shall also carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed affording to the appellant an additional amount of Rs.96,000/- with interest at 6% against the Union. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.03.2011 sanjeev