IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1376 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:27.01.2011 Dharam Chand ....Appellant versus Mahabir and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Rattan Singh Longia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Mr. Ravinder Arora, 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 ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for an amputation suffered by the claimant in an accident. The Tribunal determined an overall sum of Rs.60,000/- as appropriate, but ultimately scaled it down to Rs.25,000/- due to the fact that elsewhere in the same judgment in paragraph 12, the Tribunal found that the claimant was hard of hearing and, therefore, he should have contributed to the accident. It was a weird inference by the Tribunal. When there was clear evidence by PW1 and PW2 that the driver of the offending vehicle was being FAO No.1376 of 1992 (O&M) - 2 - driven rashly and negligently, to attribute the contributory negligence because the claimant was having an impairment of hearing, does not appear to be fair. On the other hand, it betrays the lack of fairness on the part of the Judge, who decides the case that the person, that has impairment, will also to be found responsible for causing the accident. I would vacate the finding and hold the driver of the vehicle to be wholly responsible for the accident. 2. As regards the extent of disability, unfortunately for the claimant, there was no evidence of the doctor. All that may be seen from the statement of witness was that he was amputated in his right arm. He was 65 years of age. The assessment of disability and the loss of earning capacity for amputation of the arm has at least three different values namely, when the amputation from the shoulder, when the amputation is above elbow with stump measuring to 20.3 cms and an amputation of the hand below the tip of accromion with the stump less than 11.43 cms. In any event, the lowest percentage of earning capacity for amputation of the arm is 60%. I will take that to be, therefore, 60%, take the notional income of person to be Rs.15,000/- and take the loss of earning capacity as Rs.9,000/- and take a multiplier of 5 to hold that the loss of earning capacity for a man, who was 65 years of age, was still about Rs.45,000/-. I will add Rs.25,000/- towards the inconvenience and loss of amenities of life for amputation and provide for additional Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and other Rs.10,000/- for medicines and hospital charges. On the whole, the amount that will become payable would come to Rs. 1 lakh and the amount in excess over what has been determined by the FAO No.1376 of 1992 (O&M) - 3 - Tribunal already shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.01.2011 sanjeev