FAO No.1114 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1114 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 19, 2011 HAR NARAIN S/O SH. RAM SARUP ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 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. ASHIT MALIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. LEKH RAJ NANDAL, AAG, HARYANA. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. MR. PAUL S. SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for a person who has suffered fracture of shaft of left femur with non-united fracture of left tibia with non-union of left tibial bone with shortening by two inches with stiffness of left ankle with further stiffness of left knee joint. The Doctor, PW3 had also noted the wasting of the muscle of the left leg and thigh and limitation of movements of left hip joint. The patient was still under treatment at the time of evidence, but the Doctor said that even with the surgical interventions the minimum disability cannot be less than 65%. 2. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal noted the fact that the claimant was Mate in the Railways drawing a salary of 1380/- per month. Taking the note of the fact that the claimant could not attend to duty for nearly 24 months, it provided for loss of income at `33,120/-, awarded FAO No.1114 of 1991 -2- `25,000/- towards medicines, `10,000/- for attendant charges and `5000/- for special diet. For 65% disability with stiffening of the joints of the lower limbs and further wasting of muscles, the Tribunal took the loss of earning capacity to be somewhere around 30% and took the monthly loss at `500/- and adopted a multiplier of 16 to ascertain `96,000/- as loss of earning capacity and awarded further a sum of `30,000/- towards pain and suffering. 3. Considering the fact that the case was decided in the year 1991, the amount awarded is just and the Tribunal has considered every head of claim in a proper manner according to the parameters set through law. I see no scope for intervention. I affirm the award and dismiss the appeal. January 19, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE