IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.27 of 1987(O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2011 Nafe Singh ....Appellant versus Arjan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Paul S. Saini, 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 claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident by the driver of the vehicle which had collided with a bus coming from the opposite direction. The Court found a case of contributory negligence in the ratio of 2:1 between the driver of the bus and the claimant. Although the evidence by the claimant was that the bus was overcrowded and the accident had resulted only by the negligence of the driver of the bus, the Tribunal found in a case of head-on collision an apportionment that weighed a larger slice of responsibility for the driver of the bus and did not choose to split the FAO No.27 of 1987(O&M) - 2 - liability in equal measure. I would understand that to be resultant to a reasoning that on account of the overcrowding of the bus, the driver could have been distracted when the passengers were seated on the bonnet of the bus. I will, therefore, make no modification with reference to the aspect of contributory negligence. 2. As regards the injuries suffered by the claimant and the assessment of compensation, Dr.Lal Chand Narula, who was examined as PW4, stated that x-ray had been taken in his clinic and there was a fracture with callus formation at the site of fracture. PW5-Harbhajan Singh, who was an Orthopaedic Surgeon, stated that the fracture of the left humerus had not united properly and he had operated upon him on 01.07.1985. Dr. Jalala Mashi had brought the original hospital records to show that he had a brief hospitalization immediately after the accident at the hospital at Rohtak. 3. The oral evidence of the claimant was that he had spent about Rs.20,000/- for medical treatment and his income had diminished on account of injuries suffered in the accident. He claimed that he had suffered about Rs.30,000 to 40,000/- as loss of income. I find from the evidence that he was a lawyer and the professional loss of income was said to be due to fracture in his hand. 4. The Tribunal made reference about the bills produced by the claimant for assessing the medical expenses and found the total amount aggregating to Rs.4,468.80 paise but rounded it off by awarding Rs.6,000/- for medical expenses. He had awarded Rs.5,000/- as general damages which I assume to be the damage for the monthly loss of his FAO No.27 of 1987(O&M) - 3 - income. I retain the same. There has been no compensation for pain and suffering for the fracture. I would add another additional amount of Rs.5,000/- and also provide for another Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and transportation which he must have incurred during his treatment at various places at Rohtak and New Delhi. There shall be consequently an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- but it would have to abate partially to the extent of 1/3rd and the claimant shall have the benefit of an additional amount of Rs.6,650/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. There is no representation for the appellant at the time when the matter is called. The case is of the year 1987 and I have proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of material available and with the assistance of the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.02.2011 sanjeev