FAO No. 1449 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1449 of 1991 Date of decision January 21, 2011 M/s Chatter Chemical Ltd., Kaithal ....... Appellant Versus Kamal Kumar ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. L. M. Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for Mr. C. B. Goel , Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is at the instance of the Insurance company and the owner. The counsel seeks for permission to transpose the Insurance Company as a respondent for permission to prosecute the appeal through owner of the vehicle. The permission is accorded. The Insurance Company is transposed as a respondent No.3. 2. The Registry shall carry out necessary amendment in the Memo of Parties. The appeal is being prosecuted by M/s Chatter Chemicals Ltd. only. 3. In the manner of determination of compensation, the Tribunal was dealing with the case of injuries to a person who had lost a few teeth, had serious injuries in mouth and jaw and there had been also FAO No. 1449 of 1991 2 fracture at condylur region. He had been treated by at least three doctors who had been examined as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the tribunal had awarded `40,000/- as loss of income for a person who stated that he could not be working for more than eight months and as such he used to earning `5,000/- per month due to the prolonged treatment that he had at the hospital at Karnal. The contention was that he had incurred medical expenditure to the tune of about `50,000/-.The disability had been assessed at 40% which the doctor certified as permanent disability that included the assessment also for shortening of leg by 1”. The inconvenience which the claimant had complained of was inability to chew food articles and that he had been under liquid diet for nearly a year on the advice of the doctors and at the time of trial, he was still unable to chew food and eat properly. 4. While assessing the compensation the Tribunal awarded `40,000/- towards loss of income, `40,000/- towards loss of hospital charges, `16,000/- for future medical expenses. They were slightly on higher side. Assessment of compensation for pain and suffering had been assessed at `15,000/-, `30,000/- for the disability caused and `30,000/- for loss of amenities and inconvenience that he had suffered due to the accident. Learned Senior counsel states that there was no way for the Tribunal to have granted compensation for disability as well as the inconvenience caused through such disability. I see the reason in this argument but the case cannot be reappraised for an addition of assessment of some non pecuniary heads of claim, where courts have invariably made their own approaches for assessing the compensation. The assessment of compens;tion for non pecuniary heads of claims such as pain and suffering or disability have not obtained any certainty in approach for a long time and there is now at least reasonable new beginning through judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar FAO No. 1449 of 1991 3 Vs. Ajay Kumar and others 2010 (12) Scale 265. I do not feel inclined to make alterations relating to compensation assessed for non-pecuniary heads of claim at this length of time and subject the award for any reduction. There is also a cross objection for enhancement and I do not find any merit in the same for I find that the award passed itself is slightly on higher side but I have not made any attempt to reduce the same only by virtue of the fact of long pendency of the case and the increase has been on non-pecuniary heads of claim which are not far too off the mark. 5. The award of the Tribunal is therefore confirmed and liability as determined by the Tribunal shall subsist in the manner that the award provides for. The appeal is dismissed and the award is confirmed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 21, 2011 archana