FAO No.911 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.911 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2011 SUSHILA DEVI JAIN ...APPELLANT VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. R.M. SURI, ADVCOATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2. MR. D.P. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for a person who had a crushed injury on the upper portion of the thigh. She had undergone two surgeries and had a prolonged hospitalization from 25.10.1987 to 4.1.1988. The Doctor, PW7 who had been examined gave evidence to the effect that one more surgery for a hip replacement will have to be done and an additional cost of `25,000/- would require to be incurred. He had also given evidence to the charges already incurred by the patient as `5000/- at that time. 2. These injuries, according to the petitioner, had required an attendant for whom the claimant had to pay at `500/- per month. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 25% and he stated that with the passage of time and after operation it will be reduced to 10%. The Tribunal awarded `60,000/- that included `30,000/- for general damages, `15,000/- FAO No.911 of 1990 -2- for conveyance and `15,000/- for domestic help. 3. The assessment of compensation under various heads are not satisfactory. There was evidence to the effect that the claimant was entitled to secure reimbursement of medical expenses through her husband who was a Government employee. I would, therefore, make only provision for hospital expenses and attendant charges which may not be recoverable from the State and provide for `25,000/- towards attendant charges, `5000/- towards special diet and retain the amount of `15,000/- determined by the Tribunal towards transport and others. The prolonged hospitalization and surgery in future with injuries on the sensitive parts of the body, it would have definitely caused enormous pain & suffering. I tabulate the same as follows:- Injury Cases Age: 26 Period of Hospitalization 25.10.1987 to 4.1.1988 Occupation & Income - Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 25,000 (iv) Special Diet 5,000 3. Transport - 15,000 4. Pain & Suffering 35,000 5. Disability 25% May be reduced to 10% 6. Loss of earning capacity Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier FAO No.911 of 1990 -3- Injury Cases 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 25,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage Total 60,000/- 1,05,000/- 4. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. March 10, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE