FAO No.2737 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2737 of 2005 Date of Decision. 24.12.2010 Sanjeev Kumar son of Vishnu Kumar r/o H.No.291, Sector 17, Panchkula Haryana ......Appellant Versus Sh. Gurdev Singh son of Bidhi Chand Saini and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the insurance company. None for other respondents. 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. 1. The appeal is for the enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The nature of accident, negligence attributed to the driver and the liability of the insurance company are all admitted. The issue for consideration in appeal is only for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered. 2. The claimant was said to be an accountant aged 28 years and earning Rs.3035/- per month. He had been awarded a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- for the injuries that included a fracture of the right leg, injury on his right hip joint, right ankle and the accident had resulted in some defect in the vision in one eye. While awarding a FAO No.2737 of 2005 -2- compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-, the Tribunal had apportioned Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.85000/- for disability suffered. The assessment of compensation for disability was on the basis of certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board and it had been spoken by one of the members of the Board, who had issued the certificate. The claim for compensation is on the basis that the Tribunal had not properly taken note of the loss of income that he had suffered on account of his hospitalization and injury and that the Tribunal has also not duly factored the compensation for pain and suffering that he had undergone. 3. The matters of assessment of compensation for injuries must be attempted to be addressed on known legal parameters. It will be futile to urge for enhancement of compensation if a claimant cannot place appropriate evidence which are necessary for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Under the pecuniary heads of claim, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- and that has been on the basis of actual bills produced. The claimant cannot expect to be awarded with any compensation for attendant or transportation charges if no evidence at all is led for the same. I have examined the evidence of PW1, who was the claimant and I find absolutely no evidence led with reference to any other heads of claim. The pecuniary head of claim would also include a loss of income and since that has not been awarded by the Tribunal, I would add Rs.7500/- towards loss of income for two and half months of hospitalization. The Tribunal has also not taken note of the pain and suffering, which he must have undergone for fracture of the leg and some injuries on his joint and FAO No.2737 of 2005 -3- that further the fracture was reduced by an implant. For the fracture of the right leg, I would accord Rs.7500/- and for the surgical intervention, I would provide for another Rs.5,000/- and for injuries of hip joint and the right ankle, I would Rs.2500/- making it in all, Rs.15,000/- towards the pain and suffering. As regards the disability, a practice has gained currency with several Courts granting compensation at the rate of a specified amount for every percentage of disability. In this case, I will find that the Tribunal had the evidence of a doctor to say that the claimant had a 40% disability for his leg and disability for his eye was to the extent of about 25%. The nature of disability in the eye could be seen by the fact that the vision could be corrected by a high powered glasses but beyond that I do not find from the evidence any difficulty that a claimant could encounter a slight impairment of vision. There is no evidence that his vision cannot be corrected by use of spectacles. The disability which the claimant has suffered would only result in functional disability and a specific cross-examination has been undertaken that by virtue of such disability, he does not have difficulty in sitting in his office and doing the work. The claimant, however, has given evidence to the effect that there is difficulty in walking, sitting and he cannot also run. The assessment of compensation at Rs.85,000/- towards disability which has not caused any loss of earning capacity, in my view, is appropriate and just. The compensation would, therefore, admit of merely providing for the additional heads namely the loss of income and for pain and suffering. All the remaining heads of claim that have been awarded by the Tribunal are retained. They are tabulated as under:- FAO No.2737 of 2005 -4- INJURY CASES Age 28 years Period of Hospitalization Occupation Accountant Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of income 7500 2 Medical expenses (i) Medicines 20000 20000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges (iv) Special Diet 3 Transport 4 Pain & Suffering-per fracture/per surgery 15000 5 Disability 85000 85000 6 Loss of earning capacity 7 Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 8 Reduction in life expectancy/loss of amenities 9 Loss of prospect of marriage Total 1,05,000 1,27,500 4. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 24, 2010 Pankaj*