IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.550 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:17.02.2011 Gurpreet Singh Chhatwal ....Appellant versus Shri Surinder Pal and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Karamjit Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate,for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, 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 ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident. He had a fracture of left tibia and fibula. The fractures were reduced by application of plaster paris and the doctor had given evidence to the effect that the fractures had united completely and he required rest by three months. The medical bills filed in Court were in the range of about Rs.4,634/- and the Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/-. I uphold the same. As regards the disability, the doctor had given evidence to the effect that FAO No.550 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - he had assessed the disability at 38.3%. When Dr. Sarvesh Mathur (PW1) had stated that he had found the fracture to be fully united, the assessment of permanent physical impairment to 38.3% seems suspect. But even if it were to be taken as fully established, I would take that only as a temporary functional disability. It was stated that the petitioner had difficulty in walking on slope, climbing stairs, standing on affected leg, to squat and take turns besides the presence of mild pain in the leg. For all the inconvenience that had been caused to him on account of these fractures, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses. I would find this to be appropriate and would see no justification for an enhancement. 2. The learned counsel seeks reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Karan Goyal Versus Sub Divisional Engineer, Mechanical and others-2008(2) PLR 471, where the ascertainment that had been assessed to have a permanent disability, the Division Bench of this Court had assessed a compensation @ Rs.2,000/- for every percentage of disability. I cannot take this to be a statement of law except an assessment of what the Bench took to be exigent under the circumstances. We have come by surer tools to assess the compensation in matters relating to disability through a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar and another-2010 12 SCALE 265. The attempt of a Court shall, therefore, be in all cases to see whether any particular disability would impact the earning skills of a person. If it does, the attempt must be to secure an assessment of loss of earning capacity and the future loss will be worked FAO No.550 of 1992 (O&M) -3 - on such basis of loss of earning capacity. If the disability does not result in any loss of earning capacity, for functional disability to an organ such as restriction in the range of movement in the case of an arm or a leg, the Court's attempt will be to assess the compensation for loss of amenities arising therefor. In this case, with no evidence relating to how the disability could have impaired his earning skills, the compensation would, therefore, be only to the subjective assessment of the loss of amenities arising out of the fractures and the restriction of range of movements. I have already outlined the inconvenience that he would have had to suffer for a brief period during the treatment and I have no reason to hold that a fracture which had fully united could cause a serious hardship for the rest of the life to treat it as a permanent disability. The compensation awarded, under the circumstances, is just and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation. The appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.02.2011 sanjeev