IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3882 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision:24.12.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Inder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 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 Insurance company which had the benefit of defence under section 170 MV Act is on appeal questioning the quantum. The appeal had been admitted on a point of law taken by the counsel for the insurer that when a claim is addressed for loss of earning capacity, there is no need to award any compensation for disability independently. 2. The injuries sustained by the claimant were serious in nature: They have been reproduced in para 2 of the judgment. There were grievous injuries on the skull, left eye, abdomen, pelvis and the socral region. He had been in and out of hospital from 25.2.2001 to 30.3.2001, 18.5.2001 to 19.5.2001, 16.8.2001 to 17.8.2001 and from 9.9.2001 to FAO No.3882 of 2004 (O&M) - 2 - 11.9.2001. Two surgeries had been performed. The attending doctor, Dr.Dhiraj Gupta, had given evidence to the effect that in spite of operations, he was having mild hypotripia, which was not correctible and moderate ptosis, that had been corrected to the maximum. Dr. Vinish Mathur had operated on him for fracture of right sacro-iliac joint. He had also been treated by Dr. Khanna, General Surgeon and Dr. Mahesh Mangal, plastic surgeon for correction of fractures of maxilla, fracture of nasal bone and wound on the upper lip and upper sulcus. Dr. M.S. Bajaj. AIIMS, Delhi had certified him to have suffered 22% permanent disability. 3. The Tribunal had assessed the permanent eye and nasal disability at Rs.1,50,000, pain and suffering at Rs.75,000, loss of future and amenities of life at Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.1,51,927 towards medical expenses. Compensation for disability must normally be understood as going to address the problem of reduction of quality of life due functional disability of the organ involved and if it had been assessed at Rs.1,50,000, there was no need to again make an assessment for loss of amenities of life independently. However, there was evidence that the claimant could not carry on with his job and he had submitted voluntary retirement on account of injuries. He was a ITI qualified technician and he had been working in Carrier Aircon, Gurgoan from 1.8.97 but he applied for voluntary retirement from September 2001 on account of the vision defect. The loss of future income was certainly a factor to be considered and the Tribunal that granted Rs.2,00,000 must be taken as granting compensation only under this head, since the Tribunal had FAO No.3882 of 2004 (O&M) - 3 - specifically referred to the entitlement of the claimant for loss of earning in para 29, but while determining compensation in para 30, had omitted to make reference to loss of income. I would therefore take the assessment as having been made for loss of earning capacity. The claimant was only 27 years of age and he had lost his whole career. He claimed he was earning Rs.15,000. If % of loss of earning capacity were to be even taken at 25%, and a multiplier is to be applied of 17 were to be taken, the amount of loss for earning capacity would be more than Rs.2,00,000. 4. The Tribunal has even deducted over 1.5 lacs claimed through mediclaim and has awarded compensation only for the remaining amount. The award is just and no interference is called for. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.12.2010 sanjeev