IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.681 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision:11.02.2011 Sandeep Kumar ....Appellant versus Gurbir Singh (deceased) and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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 injuries resulting from a motor accident and the Tribunal had awarded Rs.63,700/-. While assessing the quantum, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the claimant was 20 years of age and was said to be employed with the truck operator union, drawing a salary of Rs.1,100/- by working for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. For the rest of the hours of the day and particularly during the day time, he used to sit at Goel Fruit Company, Pehowa and used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month from that job. PW2 had been examined to say that the claimant was FAO No.681 of 1993 (O&M) -2 - working as Assistant Clerk, drawing a salary of Rs.1,100/-. PW6 had given evidence to the effect that the claimant was employed as a Chowkidar with him and used to collect money from the shop keepers and from rehriwalas, for which he used to give him commission of 40 paise per piece and out of the total collections of the money, he got 1% and that he used to earn Rs.50 to Rs.60 per day. The Tribunal found the evidence unconvincing and took the income, that he would have at the relevant time, at Rs.1,000/-. 2. This was to be read in the context of the accident injuries alleged to have been sustained by him. Dr. Pardeep Bhatia, Orthopaedic Surgeon, was examined as PW3, who said that the claimant had suffered disability of 55% and out of which, 8 to 10% will disappear with the passage of time and the disability had been on account old fracture dislocation with isteral popliteal palsy. The Tribunal took the disability for the whole body as 35% and keeping in view the permanent nature of disability, took the loss of earning capacity as 16%. On the said basis, the Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.30,720/- as resultant loss of earning. The Tribunal had provided for the entire amount of compensation for medical expenses at Rs.23,000/- and added a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. The overall compensation was Rs.63,700/-. For a young person, who has suffered a fracture of the hip that caused a serious impediment of his movement, the assessment of earning capacity at 16% was low. I will take the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- as against Rs.1,000/- for the only reason that his impairment in various avocations had been specifically spoken to by the FAO No.681 of 1993 (O&M) -3 - witnesses that he was working as a collection agent for PW6 and that he was also working as a Clerk in the truck operator union, drawing a salary of Rs.1,100/-. Towards the loss of earning capacity, therefore, I will double the amount to what has been provided by the Tribunal and make an additional claim possible for Rs.30,720/- round off to Rs.31,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. Since there is no representation for the claimant, the copy of the order shall be despatched to the party directly by the Registry at the address given in the memo of parties. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.02.2011 sanjeev