F.A.O.No. 3975 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 3975 of 2007 Date of Decision : 16.12.2008 Harvinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Satvinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. B.S.Guliani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad dated 1.6.2007. The appellant suffered multifarious injuries in an accident which took place on 12.9.2004. The testimony of Dr. Ashok Arora PW4 reveals the following injuries and the course adopted towards treatment :- “On 12.9.2004, at 11.45 p.m., patient Mr. Harvinder Singh, 24 years male, son of S.Mangal Singh, r/o Dhani Bikaner, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehabad was admitted in my hospital with the diagnosis of compound F.A.O.No. 3975 of 2007 -2- fracture right femur with compound fracture right both bones right leg with compound fracture both bones right leg with fracture scaphorid left with carpal dislocation left wrist with fracture base IVth metacarpal right hand with fracture metacarpal right hand with fracture upper jaw and fracture maxilla bone with shock. Multiple bloods were given to built up the patient. On 13.9.2004, right leg and right femur was operated upon and fixator was applied on the right leg and traction was given for the right femur. On 20.9.2004, left tibia was operated upon and nailing was done. On 21.9.2004, left wrist fractures reduced and POP was given. On 23.9.2004, fracture of the face was reduced and fixed with wires and arch bars with facial Surgeon Dr.Rajesh Singla. On 25.9.2004, wiring of the right hand fracture was done. On 4.10.2004, nailing of the right femur was done. Patient was discharged on 4.11.2004.” The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,54,000/- under the following heads :- i) Medical expenses Rs.98,912/- ii) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- iii) Permanent disability & F.A.O.No. 3975 of 2007 -3- loss of earning Rs.88,000/- Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant has filed the present appeal to contend that the amount is grossly inadequate considering the nature of the injuries that he has suffered in the accident. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the award deserves to be modified. The appellant has suffered 44% disability which has been established on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.88,000/- under this head. However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in clubbing the loss of income under this head, as considering the 44% permanent disability and by applying the principle of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability the appellant was entitled to Rs.88,000/- only under this head. Rs.98,912/- which have been assessed on account of medical expenses is also adequate as this is the amount which the appellant has been able to prove. So, the only head under which the modification is required to be done is regarding compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of income. The appellant is a practicing advocate who was unable to attend to his profession for approximately six months. It would be just and appropriate if an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to him under this head. In so far as the pain and suffering is concerned, it has come on record that the appellant was subjected to number of operations and therefore Rs.30,000/- which have been awarded under this head is grossly inadequate. The injuries also reveal that the F.A.O.No. 3975 of 2007 -4- appellant had suffered compound fractures of legs, hands and jaw as also the wrist. In the considered opinion of this Court, the just compensation for pain and suffering would be Rs.1,50,000/-. Rs.10,000/- are awarded for special diet etc. In this manner, the total compensation works out to be Rs.3,96,912/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,97,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the appeal stands disposed of. 16.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss