FAO No.3482 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3482 of 2011 Date of Decision:09.05.2011 Ravinder Pal son of Tek Chand, resident of village Bharu, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar and another .......Appellants Versus Tota Singh aged about 50 years, son of Gurdev Singh, resident of village Hari Nau, Tehsil and District Faridkot ......Respondent Present: Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,65,000/- for loss of arm from the shoulder. The disability shown was 90% and in the manner of assessment of compensation, the Tribunal had provided under five heads as follows:- Pecuniary Compensation: (i) Compensation on account of treatment Rs.2,00,000/- and medical expenses actually incurred (ii) Compensation on account of service Rs.25,000/- of attendants, special diet and conveyance (iii) Loss of income, as assessed above Rs.2,40,000/- Non-Pecuniary Compensation: (iv) Compensation on account of loss Rs.50,000/- of physical attributes (v) Compensation assessed on account Rs.50,000/- physical pain, mental agony and pleasure of life Total Rs.5,65,000/- FAO No.3482 of 2011 -2- 2. The only submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the medical expenses, which had been actually incurred and brought through evidence of PW-1 was that he had spent Rs.1,05,000/- but the Tribunal had provided for a compensation of Rs.2 lacs for medical expenses. The counsel would submit that the claimant had already been handicapped and there was no medical evidence brought before the Court that his disability was 90%. I only find that the assessment of compensation was less than even what the law provides for privation of arm from the shoulder. It did not require any medical evidence to show that the claimant's disability was 90% since it comes through a Schedule in Workmen's Compensation Act, which in the claim of the Motor Vehicles Act is not totally alien and Schedule II itself provides for assessment of compensation on the scales of assessment of loss of earning capacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for injuries. If the compensation were to be re-assessed by providing for loss of earning of capacity, it would be taken as 90% of his earning and multiplier suitable to the age of the claimant, who was 50 years of age. He was said to be earning Rs.45,000/- per month in Lebanon as a worker. If a loss earning capacity were also to be provided by taking a multiplier of 11 suitable to his age, the amount would exceed Rs.5,65,000/-. The overall compensation determined cannot, therefore, be said to be in excess. 3. The award is confirmed although for different reasons and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 09, 2011 Pankaj*