FAO No. 7220 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 7220 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 15.11.2012 Amrik Singh @ Meeka Ram ....Appellant V/s Ramesh Kumar & ors. ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent no. 3. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The injured claimant has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal. Learned counsel submits that appellant sustained serious injuries and fracture in the accident. He is, thus, entitled to higher compensation keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel representing respondent no. 3- insurance company has resisted the prayer. He submits that tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation. Same deserves to be maintained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. An accident occurred on 25.12.2008 in which appellant was injured. On a claim being lodged, tribunal came to the conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle. Tribunal after taking into FAO No. 7220 of 2011 2 account medical bills exhibited by the appellant, awarded a sum of `10,550/- towards medical expenses. After taking into account statement of concerned doctor who issued disability certificate to the extent of 10%, tribunal awarded a sum of `20,000/- towards it. As appellant remained under treatment for two months, `8,000/- was awarded towards loss of income. Another sum of `10,000/- was awarded on account of pain and suffering undergone by the appellant. `5,000/- was awarded under usual heads such as special diet, transportation/attendant. Total compensation was, thus, worked out as `53,550/-. In my considered view, compensation granted under usual heads such as special diet, transportation, attendant etc. is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. Appellant would, thus, be entitled to another `5,000/- under these heads. It appears that appellant is a driver by profession which requires expertise in the field. As he has suffered fracture of his left femur and the same healed up in ordinary course of nature, I am of the considered view that compensation granted on account of loss of income is inadequate. For loss of income, appellant would be entitled to another `8,000/-. Accordingly, amount of compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced by another `13,000/-. Appeal is accepted to this extent and award passed by the tribunal is accordingly modified. As the case has been heard and decided on merits, delay of 158 days in filing the appeal is deemed to have been condoned. November 15, 2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE