FAO No.6106 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6106 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 01.04.2011 Nakul Kundra son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Kundra Department Store, NC-118, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar ......Appellant Versus Randhir Singh son of Shri Nseeb Singh and others.....Respondents Present: Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim arising out of injuries suffered by a male aged 21 years. He had crush injury in his ankle that required surgical intervention on at least five occasions. He claimed that he had incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.5 lacs but the Tribunal had provided for compensation for the entire bills that had been produced before the Court at Rs.2,18,135.50. As regards the disability, the medical certificate, which has been produced before the Tribunal showed that he was disabled from Arthoesis left anke with sensory loss on foot and disfigurement of left leg with loss of muscles and loss of movements of toe and the disability was held to be permanent in nature at 40%. The evidence supporting this certificate gave no more than mere affirmation that the doctor had examined him FAO No.6106 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and issued a certificate and that the disability was permanent. 3. Yet another doctor, who had been examined as PW-5, had stated that he had not seen the patient presently and he could not say anything about his condition. His evidence was brought to the doctor only to support the fact that he had the injuries resulting out of an accident and he had performed the surgery himself immediately after the accident and the bone was stabilized by external fixation. He also stated that he had operated him for skin grafting. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the award passed by the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the compensation for future loss of earning capacity. The loss of earning capacity in case where there results a fracture must be invariably brought through appropriate evidence. I have already pointed out to the fact that PW-5 was a doctor, who had performed surgery had not given any evidence about the condition of the patient. PW-7 had not again stated anything about how the disability could impact his earning skills and he merely pointed out to the functional disability of the leg in its sensory impairment of the leg to a certain extent and disfigurement of the leg and wasting of muscles. If these injuries could have in any way impacted his normal functioning, without any evidence to support such a contention, I am not prepared to make any conjecture that the person had suffered any serious loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal while assessing for the injuries split the assessment of Rs.2,50,000/- in four different heads which are as follows:- 1. Damages for mental pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Damages to compensate for loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- FAO No.6106 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of life 3. Damages for the loss of expectation of life Rs.50,000/- 4. Inconvenience, hardship and disappointment Rs.1,00,000/- in life 5. The heads of claim, which are adopted are rather strange and out of sync with the judicial practice obtaining for assessment of injuries. They could have merely comprised heads of claim for pain and suffering and disability, which could affect the amenities of life. Loss of earning capacity could be another head, where appropriate evidence is given in that regard. The manner in which the compensation could be assessed for the subjective claims shall be periodically mental pain and suffering and loss of amenities. All other heads referred to above are inappropriate and the assessment of compensation at Rs.2.5 lacs is adequate to absorb even the future loss of earning capacity. 6. The overall compensation of Rs.4.7 lacs assessed by the Tribunal is, in my view, appropriate and just and it would require no further enhancement for claim for compensation. 7. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 01, 2011 Pankaj*