IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.786 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:21.01.2011 Om Parkash and another ....Appellants versus Ram Jit and others ..Respondents II. FAO No.787 of 1992 (O&M) Om Parkash and another ....Appellants versus Ramesh Rani and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. ---- 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. Both the appeals are connected as they arise out of the same accident. As regards the appeal in FAO No.787 of 1992, the award is for death of a person by name Baldev Raj, who was 36 years of age and a partner in a firm. Against the determination of the award, the appeal FAO No.786 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - preferred by the Insurance Company contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and seeks for reappraisal of the same. I will not accommodate for such a plea in a case where the Insurance Company did not have the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the MV Act. The appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum is, accordingly, dismissed. 2. The appeal by the insurer in FAO No.786 of 1992 ought to be dealt with in the same way, for, it is against an award of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Insurance Company's appeal is dismissed, but there is a plea for enhancement of claim at the instance of the claimant, who had suffered an amputation of his leg. He was 47 years of age and was said to be a labourer. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.2,14,000/-. The doctor, who had examined him, had found that he had 80% disability but the Tribunal while assessing the compensation took the loss of earning to be Rs.90,000/- taking the loss of earning capacity as Rs.500/- and adopted a multiplier of 15. I would take the income as Rs.1,200/- as stated by him and adopt a 80% loss of earning as having resulted from 80% disability and adopt a multiplier of 13 to hold the loss as Rs.1,68,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering and I would understand this as going for the component of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities in life. The Tribunal has also provided for Rs.14,400/- as loss of past income which I will retain. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.10,000/- for medicines, hospital charges, attendant charges and special diet and the learned counsel seeks for enhancement FAO No.786 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - of the claim. I have not the benefit of the evidence of the party giving details of the attendant charges or hospital charges or special diet and I do not read from the evidence of the doctor any more than fact that his hospitalization would have required an attendant and he must have been fed on a special diet. If Rs.10,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, I have no material placed before me to improve upon the amount as determined by the Tribunal. The total amount of compensation will be as tabulated as under: Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Age 47 Income=1,200 1. Loss of income 14,400 14,400 2. Medical expenses: 10,000 10,000 (medicines, Hospital charges, Attendant charges, special diet) 3. Transport - 4. Pain & Suffering- 1,00,000 25,000 per fracture/per surgery 5. Loss of amenities due to - 75,000 disability caused by amputation 6. Income x % of loss of earning 90,000 1,68,400/- power x multiplier _______ _______ Total 2,14,400 2,92,800 FAO No.786 of 1992 (O&M) - 4 - 3. The amount in excess over what has been determined by the Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.01.2011 sanjeev