FAO No. 798 of 1990 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 798 of 1990 (O&M) Decided on : 16-12-2008 Satish Kumar Mehta ....Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.S.Nabhewala, Advocate for the appellant Mr. N.S.Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No.25611-CII of 2008 Application for placing on record office order dated 24.11.2008 is dismissed. FAO No. 798 of 1990 This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 20.8.1990. The appellant suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 9th March, 1988. The head of his right femur was smashed resulting in shortening of his leg by ½ inch and a permanent disability which according to the testimony of PW2 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Junior Resident, PGI, Chandigarh was established to be 18 to 19% at that point of time. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the recovery. FAO No. 798 of 1990 (O&M) 2 Rs.45,000/- in all was assessed in the following manner:- 1. Rs. 40,000/- was granted for permanent disability 2. 2. Rs.5,000/- was granted to the appellant being the amount which was not reimbursed to him. Dis-satisfied with the award the appellant is in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to two applications which he has preferred one bearing C.M.No.600-CII of 1992 which was filed in the year 1992 to claim that the appellant had undergone an operation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi for affixation of a plate in order to improve the mobility of his limb and that he spent an amount of Rs. 6000/- in the process. The Doctors of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital furnished a certificate viewing that disability is more than 30%. The second application bearing C.M. No. 18159-CII of 2008 which has been moved by the appellant to say that now he requires total hip replacement at the age of 58 years and that is too as a result of the accident is dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the material on record. It is a settled proposition of law that the Court is not precluded from taking note of the subsequent developments. The proceedings arising from a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are a result of a beneficial legislation and therefore, this principle has to be accepted liberally. Concededly, the appellant suffered injuries in an accident on 9th March, 1988 where his disability was assessed as 18 to 19%. But barely three years thereafter he had to undergo another operation for the injuries he had sustained in the said accident and then his disability was assessed as 30%. I am of the considered opinion that this factor should be FAO No. 798 of 1990 (O&M) 3 taken into consideration while determining the present appeal and considering the fact that 30% disability has been assessed at that point of time when the appellant had to undergo surgery and also keeping in view the principle of awarding Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability, the amount assessed under the head of disability comes to Rs.60,000/-. The appellant was a young man of 35 years when he met with an accident and the fact that surgery was required to rectify his mobility of the limb, disability, he would have undergone considerable pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head. It has also come on record that he had spent a sum of Rs. 6200/- for the surgery. This amount cannot be said to be exaggerated as even for a rough estimate on the basis of conjectures this amount would have been spent. The said amount is also awarded to the appellant for the subsequent surgery. In this manner, compensation comes to Rs.1,16,200/-. An amount of Rs. 5000/- each is awarded for special diet and for engaging an attendant during the period he was immobilized. Therefore, total compensation comes to Rs. 1,26,200/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to pay the amount shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms and the award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. December 16 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge