FAO No. 717 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 717 of 2000 Date of decision April 27, 2011 Surinder Singh ....... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. K. S. Sivia , DAG., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. **** 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. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The counsel for the respondent is present. I have proceeded to examine the case on the basis of the record filed before the Court. 2. The claimant was a police constable with Punjab Police. He was said to have suffered injuries in a motor accident that resulted in multiple injuries with cerebral concussion, middle cranial fossa right, forehead laceration and fracture of left tibial condyle. The doctor who had treated him gave evidence to the effect that he was admitted to the hospital on 9.2.1991 and discharged on 26.2.1991 and he took further follow up treatment subsequently on several dates and the last visit was 25.6.1991. There was evidence to the effect that he had been advised rest FAO No. 717 of 2000 2 till 26.6.1991. The doctor had assessed the disability at 5%. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation provided for `45,000/- as compensation that included `25,000/- for permanent disability, `10,000/- for medical bills and `10,000/- for pain and suffering. 3. When the case was pending, he had filed an application bearing CM No. 5015-16 of 2011 to show that he was medically examined by a medical board and had given a certificate saying that he may not be able to run and jump in view of abnormal abduction of movement of the left knee with antero lateral instability of tibia . The appellant had also filed the disability certificate issued by Civil Surgeon to contend that the disability is 10%. The attempt of the appellant to state that there had been an aggravation of his disability over a period of time. I do not find any justification making a fresh assessment of injury. On the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another 2010 12 Scale 268 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a medical certificate cannot be received in evidence unless the doctor himself had examined but however makes a distinction with reference to the admissibility of a certificate issued by a medical board and it will be received subject to proof of its genuineness. What is produced before the Court is only a photocopy and even assuming that the said document could be relied on it only refers to the fact of some abnormal abduction of the knee and inability of the constable to run or jump. It is assumed that a constable has to be reasonably active and mobile and any disability that impairs his normal duties must be properly assessed with reference to the loss of earning capacity. 4. The case has been disposed of in the year 2000 where the Tribunal had assessed `10,000/- for pain and suffering in a case where he had a fracture of the tibial condyle when he was under treatment for nearly four months. The assessment of general damage for pain and FAO No. 717 of 2000 3 suffering is invariably a subjective exercise and the Tribunal had assessed `10,000/- for pain and suffering at that time. I find no reason to increase the same. The assessment of `25,000/- towards disability that has not in any way resulted in loss of earning power but has definitely cast impairment in the degree of abduction of the knee and therefore the amount of `25,000/- must be taken as going towards loss of amenities attendant on such disability. The Tribunal has also awarded `10,000/- for medical bills. He has pleaded that he spent `10,000/- for taxi charges, `10,000/- for special diet and `10,000/- towards attendant charges. Since he had been in the hospital for about two weeks and the treatment continued for four months, I would make a provision for attendant charges for four months at the rate of `750/- per month. A further provision of `5,000/- towards transportation and 2,000/- for special diet shall also be made. There would be an additional compensation for `10,000/- which will attract 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 award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 27, 2011 archana