FAO No.1696 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1696 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: February 3, 2011 MANOHAR LAL ...APPELLANT VERSUS JANAK RAJ AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT: MR. S.K. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR MR. R.M. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FO RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. 2 FAO No.214 of 1993 JANAK RAJ AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. S.K. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE FOR MR. R.M. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) FAO No.1696 of 1992 and FAO No.214 of 1993 are connected arising out of the same accident in a collision between the car driven by the FAO No.1696 of 1992 -2- claimant and the truck. In FAO No.1696 of 1992, the appellant had suffered serious injuries and a prolonged hospitalization. The details of injuries and the present disability have been set forth in the evidence of the Doctor who was treating him and they are reproduced as under:- “15 degrees of Flexion in the right knee and 30 degrees flexion in the left knee and 85 degrees flexion in the right elbow. This amount to 35% permanent disability in the right upper limb and 40% permanent disability in the right lower limb. The total disability of 60% was found. The doctor opined that there as no chance of further improvement.” The Tribunal has assessed the compensation of `1,50,000/- for a person who faced a long period of treatment and suffered injuries of both legs and the arm which was assessed at a disability of 60%. He was stated to be engaged in the business of bakery and he had stated that he had suffered loss of about `70,000/- on account of his inability to attend to the business when he was hospitalized. I will make a re-assessment on the basis of injuries which had been given in the manner referred to in the tabulation below:- Injury Cases Age: 25 Period of Hospitalization 26.8.89 to 5.3.90 Occupation & Income Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 18,000 70,000 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines 50,000 50,000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 10,800 10,800 FAO No.1696 of 1992 -3- Injury Cases (iv) Special Diet 3. Transport - 4. Pain & Suffering 60,000 60,000 5. Disability - 35% upper limb 40% lower limb 60% 60% 6. Loss of earning capacity Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 60,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage Total 1,50,000/- 2,50,800/- The total amount of compensation comes to `2,50,800/. 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. The liability of the insurance company has already stood restricted and the additional amount that has been determined shall be borne only by the driver and owner of the truck who are the appellants in FAO No.214 of 1992. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. As regards FAO No.214 of 1993, there is no representation for the appellants. The appeal is dismissed in default for non-prosecution. February 3, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE