FAO No.2231 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2231 of 1995 Date of Decision.09.12.2010 Randhir Singh son of Sh. Gopala alias Gopa Ram alias Gopi Ram r/o village Barwa Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra ......Appellant Versus Satpal s/o Sh. Laxmi Narain r/o village Hathira Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra driver of canter No.HNQ 2331 and others ......Respondents Present: None for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, 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.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered in an accident where the claimant had an amputation of his leg. The accident pertains to the year 1992 and after the disposal of the case in the year 1995, the case has come for several attempts of settlement through Lok Adalats, first in the year 1999, later in the year 2000 and still later in the year 2000 when the matter was taken up for compromise, it appears from the file that the insurance company wanted to prefer a cross appeal and therefore, the matter was not taken up. This case has been on board for nearly one month and at the time when the case was taken up no one appeared on behalf of the claimants. FAO No.2231 of 1995 -2- Normally in such circumstances where there is no representation of the party through counsel, I would have felt inclined to dismiss the case in default of appearance and for non prosecution but I only take this to be an instance of callousness on the part of the counsel for the claimants and I would proceed to examine the case with the assistance of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company. 2. The Tribunal assessed the compensation for a person, who claimed that he was making his income in dairy and milk business. For the period of hospitalization for four months, the Tribunal had provided loss of income at Rs.3600/- @Rs.900/- per month, assessed Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, granted Rs.31621/- towards the entire expenses incurred by him and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,26,221/- including Rs.15,000/- for his future loss of income and Rs.5000/- for special diet and transportation. I would make no alteration with reference to the loss of past income, medical expenses and special diet and transportation. As regards the assessment for pain and suffering and for future loss of income, the case would still require the proper treatment. In this case, there is evidence to the effect that the accident has resulted in amputation of his leg, two inches above knee and the assessment of disability is 60%. I would take the same to be also the loss of earning capacity and take the average income at Rs.1500/- per month. I will adopt a multiplier of 18 and take the loss of earning capacity to have resulted at Rs.1,94,400/-. This shall be against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Even apart from the amputation, there is evidence to the effect that he had had multiple abrasions with the lacerated wound near the medial angle near the left eye, communited FAO No.2231 of 1995 -3- fractures and he had been under treatment for a long time. He has had fairly long periods of hospitalization from the time of accident till on 26.11.1992 till he was discharged on 19.05.1993 with intervening periods of discharge and re-admission. The assessment of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering , I would, therefore, think is appropriate. Since this case has resulted in amputation and the Doctor has also assessed 60% disability, I would take even apart from the provision of loss of earning capacity, he must be provided for loss of amenities of life for a young person who had lost his leg and who has complained that even his prospect of marriage has been diminished. This accident has taken place in the year 1990 and I would provide Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and provide for another Rs.25,000/- towards loss of prospects of marriage. In all, this would mean an additional amount of Rs.2,49,400/-. This amount shall be paid by the insurer with interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 09, 2010 Pankaj*