FAO No. 148 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 148 of 1990 Date of decision February 15, 2011 Amar Singh ....... Appellant Versus Rajinder Parshad and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Subhash Chander Patial , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg,AAG.,Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None for respondent No.1. **** 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 appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor accident. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation awarded `40,000/- that included `30,000/- for the disability which he had sustained, `5,000/- for the treatment and `5,000/- for pain and suffering. 2. The doctor who had examined immediately after the accident, Dr. Aditya Aggarwal PW-7 had stated that he had given treatment to him for injuries which resulted intercondylar fracture right femur with fracture, maxilla with fracture zygoma and frontal bone with FAO No. 148 of 1990 2 aerocoele with haemorhagic contusion left. He had been admitted in hospital on 8.2.1987 and remained under his treatment up to 7.3.1987. He had undergone an operation for open reduction internal fixation with 'L' plating with maxillary repair by wiring under general anaesthesia on 23.2.1987. 3. The doctor was of the opinion that there had been impairment in movement of his knee and he would flex the knee actively up to 90 degree and with difficulty up to 60 degree further. He carried a limp but the doctor was of the opinion that the extensive lack of 60 degree could be passively corrected up to zero degree in the course of time. I would, therefore, assume that the injury to his leg was at a temporary impairment which could be corrected over a period of time but the injuries on his face particularly with a fracture, maxilla with fracture zygoma and frontal bone with aerocoele with haemorhagic contusion had caused impairment in his vision. It was in evidence that he had been referred to the department of Neurology and PW-11 Dr. Suresh Kumar Bansal had given evidence as having treated him on a reference some time in October,1987. The evidence given by the doctor is reproduced as under :- “I examined the visual evoked potentials of person Amar Singh on 28.10.1987. The investigation was done over both the eyes to check visual loss extent. The results were there was no response from the right eye and the response from the left eye was P100 was delayed to 128 m.sec. The findings were same as on repeat examination on 30.3.1988. The inference was there was no response meaning by no vision from the right eye and the left eye connections to the brain is effected upto the tune of loss of earning capacity by 20%. The total disability of both the eyes is 50% i..e 30% from right eye and 20% from left eye. The extent of said disability is FAO No. 148 of 1990 3 most likely of permanent nature and is not subject to any treatment. 4. From the evidence it can be seen that he has lost vision in one eye and in another eye there has been a partial loss of vision. A loss of vision in one eye would not further damage to the eye bulb is assessed at 40% loss of earning capacity. There is also impairment of vision in the other eye which is to the extent of 20%. In terms of the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act it must be taken as loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10%. The over all loss of earning capacity would therefore be taken to 50%. 5. I will reappraise the compensation making the due provision for the fractures that had resulted to the patient and the injuries that he has undergone and provide for `5,000/- for every fracture and for surgical intervention an amount of `2,500/-. Having regard to the long hospitalization for more than a month and prolonged treatment with impairment in his vision, I would also provide for attendant charges and special diet. He has stated he was running a karyana shop and he was earning `1500-2000/- per month. It was his evidence on account of his injury he could not work for three months. I will take his income as `1500/- per month and therefore reassess the compensation to provide for loss of income for three months and also the future loss of earning capacity by adopting 50% loss as having resulted and apply a multiplier of 17. A young person of 27 years to suffer serious impairment in his vision ought to have mean a serious loss in the amenities of his life as well. The over all compensation is tabulated hereunder:- S.No. Head of claim Amount 1 Loss of income `4,500 2 Medical expenses `5,000/- 3 Attendant charges `5000 FAO No. 148 of 1990 4 S.No. Head of claim Amount 4 Special diet `2,500/- 5 Transport `1,000/- 6 Pain and suffering `25,000/- 7 Loss of earning capacity `1,53,000/- Loss of amenities ` 50,000/- 9 Total `2,46,000/- The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 15, 2011 archana