FAO No.3133 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3133 of 2003 Date of Decision.16.12.2010 Jagdish Kumar Matta sonof Shri Subh Raj Matta, resident of H.No.805, Ward No.23, Hira Nagar, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. ......Appellant Versus Ratti son of Sh. Kanshi Ram, Caste Jat, Resident of Jat Ka Shishwana, Tehsil Nagina, PS Nagina, District Gurgaon and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for a lawyer, who was a sales tax practitioner, who due to injuries had suffered three fractures on his left leg, left hand and collar bone. He had been hospitalized for about 15 days when open reduction and fixation of fractures had been done. He had undergone three times operations and the compensation that provided to him included Rs.1,08,000/- for loss of income during the 9 months period when the Tribunal accepted that he could not effectively practice and Rs.96,481/- for medical expenses. The doctor had assessed the FAO No.3133 of 2003 -2- disability at 25% and the Tribunal had, therefore, provided Rs.30,000/- towards such disability. The Tribunal had also awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering. I have attempted to standardise the measure of non-pecuniary damages in Madan Lal Paneja Vs. State of Haryana and others in FAO No.422 of 1993 decided on 12.11.2010 and suggested Rs.7500/- per fracture and additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for surgical interventions. That according to me would provide for an additional amount as determined by the Tribunal. Learned counsel states that the claimant had suffered 25% disability and therefore, compensation must have been provided at Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability. This is an unscientific mode of compensation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently laid down the principles of assessment in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another 2010 (10) SCALE 265 in cases where the disability results in loss of earning capacity. There must be actual evidence co-relating the disability to loss of earning capacity. The disability could be an independent head of claim for the loss of amenities that the injury inflicts a person with, and for a person who was suffered a disability on account of fracture on his leg and hand that has caused restriction of movements of limbs 25% disability, I would understand it only as functional disability of what can impair the quality of life. The award of compensation at Rs.30,000/- is, under the circumstances, justified and would require no further escalation of assessment. Even as regards the loss of earning capacity, it is a matter of evidence and I have no basis to hold that a fracture in hand or leg would impair the practicing skills of a lawyer. The difficulty of having to climb stairs in FAO No.3133 of 2003 -3- the place of practice or having not been able to drive his own car are sure inconveniences going to the factor of assessment of loss of amenities to life. I do not, therefore, find any reason to subject that to any further enhancement of compensation. The only addition which I would make to what has been awarded by the Tribunal apart from the component of pain and suffering, would be the medical charges which the Tribunal has omitted to consider to an extent of Rs.3750/-, which I will provide for in appeal. The scale of compensation shall, therefore, be in the manner as tabulated hereunder: INJURY CASES Age Period of Hospitalization Occupation & income Service & business Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of income 1,08,000 1,08,000 2 Medical expenses (i) Medicines (ii) Hospital charges (iii) Attendant Charges (iv) Special Diet 96481 9000 5000 1,00,600 9000 5000 3 Transport 5000 5000 4 Pain & suffering – per fracture/per surgery 20000 37500 5 Disability 30000 30000 6 Loss of earning capacity Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 7 Reduction in life expectancy/loss of amenities FAO No.3133 of 2003 -4- INJURY CASES 8 Loss of prospect of marriage - - Total 2,73,481 2,95,100 2. The amount in excess over what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be as determined by the Tribunal. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 16, 2010 Pankaj*