FAO No.2035 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2035 of 1994 Date of Decision.23.12.2010 Gurdip Singh son of Kehar Singh resident of village Uran Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala ......Appellant Versus Sucha Singh son of Babu Singh, village and PO Palam Galon and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Harbhajan Singh Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the insurance company. 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. 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident where the claimant was 32 years of age and suffered multiple injuries for which the Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation. I notice from the records that the matter has gone through an attempt of settlement at Lok Adalat but it was not fruitful since the insurance company was not prepared to settle the amount and therefore, it is brought before Court for disposal on merits. 2. The evidence was that the claimant had suffered fracture on both legs and the right thigh and that he was subjected to six or seven FAO No.2035 of 1994 -2- operations in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The evidence was that he was employed as a Clerk in the office of Market Committee, Rajpura and due to his prolonged ailment and treatment, he suffered loss of income for more than 1 ½ years. During all that period of his confinement in bed, he was attended to by one Ram Lal. Dr. Jaswinder Singh Walia, an Orthopaedic Surgeon had given evidence to the effect that the claimant had suffered communited fracture of the shaft femur on the left side of both bones with radial nerve palsy on the left side. He had blunt injury in his stomach for which a surgery had been done and his spleen was removed. A sigmoid calostomy was done in left iliac fossa and later shifted to the Orthopaedic unit after a period of about 10 days in the surgical ward. At the orthopaedic unit, there had been a close reduction and POP applied to the left leg. On 3.2.1993 an operation of the left fore-arm had been done and K-nailing had been fastened by Dr. Mangat Singh and he was ultimately discharged on 5.2.1993. 3. The Tribunal had discarded the evidence of Dr. Jaswinder Singh Walia, who was an Orthopaedic Surgeon and who had recorded the nature of injury for the reason that he had not performed any operation and that he was merely a duty doctor, who had recorded the nature of injuries. His evidence was taken only to the effect that there was a factum of admission of the patient and that two surgeries had been performed on the left leg and the left arm. The Tribunal had noticed that there was a linear operative scar mark on the lateral side of the left arm about five inches and the external rotation of the left arm was limited and the abduction was limited upto 90 degrees. He FAO No.2035 of 1994 -3- was also diagnosed as being a case of mal united fracture and the disability had been assessed at 65%. The Tribunal itself has noticed that at the time when the testimony of the witness was recorded, he was still in lying position and the Tribunal itself observed that it was not suggested even in the cross examination that the witness was pretending and that he was not really bed ridden. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.15,000/- for the disability suffered by the claimant and Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses. There had been definitely some loss of income, which it determined as Rs.40,000/- and awarded Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges. In all, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal had awarded towards pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- in a case where there were two fractures and there had been at least four surgeries performed on him. I will make an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering for the surgical intervention that the patient had suffered. The Tribunal had not made any assessment of compensation for the disability had been assessed at 65% which according to the doctor involved a restriction of range of movement of his arm above 90 degrees. For a person, who suffered the serious impairment in the range of movement of arm and restriction only to half the extent of what a person is capable of doing with the arm, I would provide for an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards disability. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. The appeal is allowed making a provision for a further enhancement to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. The additional amount of FAO No.2035 of 1994 -4- what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 23, 2010 Pankaj*