FAO No.1607 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH X Obj. No.3-CII of 1996 in/and FAO No.1607 of 1995 Date of Decision. 01.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, SCO Nos.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its regional manager and others ......Appellants Versus Jashmohinder Kaur wife of Shri S.J. Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the cross-objectors. 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 insurance company along with the owner and driver has come on appeal against the award of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The claim was at the instance of a lady aged 48 years, who was Principal of a school at Ambala. The accident is said to have been taken place by a collision of the insured's vehicle with the scooter in which the claimant was travelling. The issue of negligence was clearly established especially when the driver of the insured's vehicle was not even examined. The Tribunal, on evidence, assessed the compensation at Rs.2 lacs and FAO No.1607 of 1995 -2- made the owner and the insurer liable to pay the compensation. 2. Before me, the insurance company admitted that the insurer and the insured cannot maintain joint appeal in view of the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnama George and others Vs. N.K. Raju and another 2000 (4) SCC 130. The counsel for the insurance company sought permission for transposition of the insurer as a respondent and I, therefore, order the transposition of the insurer as respondent No.2 in the appeal. Registry is directed to carry out the amendment to the memo of parties and take this appeal as filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle, who would now be made parties as appellant Nos.1 and 2. 3. As regards the injuries, it had come on record that the claimant has suffered a fracture of her left femur and fracture of left wrist. She has undergone an operation with a fixature of a plate and K-nailing having been done to reduce the fracture. It was further in evidence that she has to undergo an operation in future for removing the implants. The claimant has contended that she was originally taken treatment at Ambala and later she had been brought to Chandigarh for surgery. She had undertaken several visits from Ambala to Chandigarh and she had later taken treatment at Ambala itself. She claimed that she incurred more than Rs.35,000/- as transportation expenses. She also gave evidence to the effect that she has purchased medicines and spent over Rs.70,000/- for operation and medical expenses. The doctor, who had been treating her, an Orthopedic Surgeon was also examined as PW-1, who gave evidence of mal united fracture on the left side, stiffness of knee FAO No.1607 of 1995 -3- joint and wasting of muscles. There was limping in the left lower limb, which was said could continue throughout her life. Doctor gave evidence to the effect that the claimant must have spent over Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for high protein diet, which she was advised to take. The claimant had actually produced receipts for taxi charges from P3 to P18 that showed that she has spent towards transportation alone Rs.25,000/-. For a Principal, who was heading an educational institution of repute, she stated that she had to take the assistance of a domestic work at a salary of Rs.800/- per month. The domestic help was also examined as PW3. She had taken several visits to a physio-therapist for regaining strength of her limbs and had given details of the several visits which she had gone to physio- therapist. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal provided Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet etc. and provided Rs.25,000/- for conveyance which was proved through vouchers. The Tribunal had awarded towards pain and suffering Rs.45,000/- and awarded Rs.70,000/- towards permanent disability, which ought to mean to include claim for partial loss of earning capacity. Though not a scientific approach but our Court has over a period of time adopted a formula of providing for Rs.2,000/- for every percentage of disability. This, I would understand as the composite of several factors such as loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities for life, loss for cosmetic appearance etc. The Tribunal also provided for cost of attendance at Rs.15,000/-. The Court found that she had not suffered any loss of income and she continued to receive the salary. This may not be correct judicial FAO No.1607 of 1995 -4- approach, for a loss of earning capacity has still to be determined for a decreased saleability in the market if she were to seek for a fresh job or look for better prospects in future. The award of the Tribunal was Rs.2 lacs. There is a cross appeal for enhancement of compensation where it is contended that the Tribunal had not considered the claim for attendant charges which she proved by examination of the domestic work. I would affirm the award except as regards providing for an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and I would still add further amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The cross objection is allowed to the extent of Rs.35,000/- with interest @6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The appeal by the insured/owner and driver is dismissed and the cross objection is allowed to the extent mentioned above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 01, 2010 Pankaj*