FAO No.1034 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1034 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 2011 HARMEET PAL SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS CHAMKAUR SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. JAGDISH MARWAHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3. 2. FAO No.1234 of 1992 PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...APPELLANT VERSUS HARMEET PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. JAGDISH MARWAHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. Both the appeals are connected and they address the issue of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claimant was an Officer in a nationalized bank and his statement was that he had been admitted in Civil Hospital at Dhanaula on 28.1.1987, with multiple injuries FAO No.1034 of 1992 -2- and later was removed to Dr. Amrit Gupta's Clinic at Bathinda where he took treatment from 17.2.1987 to 1.3.1987. Since he had not been fully cured, he had taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi where he remained admitted from 2.3.1987 to 8.3.1987. He had been operated upon for fracture of pelvis and both bones of his right leg. He stated that he had taken treatment under Dr.P.S.Mani of that hospital and he was advised another operation in September, 1987. The evidence was that he has spent about `50,000/- on medicines and `10,000/- on travelling expenses and attendant charges. His evidence was that he had been crippled and he could not rise to the position of Zonal Manager. He has stated that he was unable to drive his own vehicle and he was spending `100/- per day for taxi for going to his office and coming back. He claimed `2.80 lacs as compensation. 2. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation at `1,03,000/- under various heads. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Transport Corporation would point out that the award has been passed without even entering a finding of negligence of the driver. He states that the Tribunal had dealt with the case without proper adjudication of matters which were relevant. Already, at the time of preferring an appeal, when `25,000/- had been deposited by the Corporation, this Court has allowed the claimant to withdraw the said amount also. I believe, it will be a futile exercise to call for a finding regarding negligence, but take it as established, however, unconvincing the approach would be, if only for the purpose of exigency because, it is not possible to secure evidence relating to the negligence only at this length of time. 3. As regards the quantum, surely the manner of assessment is not FAO No.1034 of 1992 -3- satisfactory going by the nature of injuries that he had, namely, the fracture of pelvis and the fracture of both bones in the leg and the prolonged treatment at three hospitals at three different places. The assessment, if it has been governed under respective heads, the following ought to be the result:- Injury Cases Age: Period of Hospitalization Occupation & Income - Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 28,000 28,000 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines 15,000 15,000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 5000 (iv) Special Diet 20000 5000 3. Transport 10,000 4. Pain & Suffering – per fracture/per surgery 40,000 20,000 5. Disability 15% 6. Loss of earning capacity Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 20,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage Total 1,03,000/- 1,03,000/- 4. The persons who had actually treated the appellant were not examined, but a Doctor from ESI Hospital was examined who had assessed the disability at 15%. The evidence was unconvincing, but I am merely providing for `20,000/- as loss of amenities and would take again that a provision for `20,000/- towards pain & suffering would be appropriate in FAO No.1034 of 1992 -4- view of the fact that he has given evidence to the effect that he had undergone two surgeries and he could not resume his duty for a fairly long period of time. The over-all compensation in the manner which was ascertained by the Tribunal is retained. The appeal by the claimant- appellant is dismissed. 5. There is no representation for the appellant, but I have proceeded to examine the case on merits since the issue of quantum was also the subject of the appeal filed by the Transport Corporation. The appeal filed by the Transport Corporation is also dismissed. 6. The copy of the order may be sent to the party directly by the Registry. February 25, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE