FAO No.3854 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3854 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.05.2011 Arvind Saluja and Ors. ... Appellants Versus Som Parkash and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, the appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. The claimant had died during the pendency of the proceedings and the legal representatives had been impleaded. It was sought to be contended that death was resultant to the injuries but the Tribunal discarded the plea on the ground that he had suffered only fracture in his leg and such an injury could not have been the precipitating cause for death. There was also no medical evidence to bring a nexus of the injuries to death. I do not find, there was an error in the approach of the Tribunal as regards its finding that injuries were not the proximate cause for the death. 2. While assessing a compensation of Rs.96,500/-, the Tribunal provided Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. The said claim is impermissible in the scheme of law as brought through the Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. This amount of Rs.10,000/-, however, would be added to the FAO No.3854 of 2010 -2- attendant charges since he was said to have had fairly long period of hospitalization when he was operated twice. The learned counsel states that he had frequent visits to the Doctor and he was transported by taxi car every time. The driver of the taxi car had given evidence to the effect that he has charged Rs.9,100/- but the Tribunal had provided only Rs.3000/-. I will admit the claim for enhancement by adding another Rs.6,100/-. 3. Learned counsel states that the deceased was running a shop of radio television repair and was earning about Rs.14,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal estimated that he could have earned only Rs.5,000/- and provided Rs.20,000/- for a loss of income for four months. Learned counsel states that even the Tribunal had observed that he was not on his own at least for a period of one year. There is no clear evidence that he was unable to work for the whole year. I will make an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income taking the inability to work due to injuries for the last three months. For 5% disability, which was assessed by the Doctor, the Tribunal had provided Rs.10,000/- which I understand to be for the loss of amenities and inconvenience that he had to suffer. This is again a component of general damage for personal injuries and could not have survived to the legal representatives. This also, I take into a component of attendant charges and retain the same. Overall, there shall be an addition of Rs.16,100/- over the amount already determined by the Tribunal. This will also attract interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed. MAY 10, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE