FAO No.44 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.44 of 1992 Date of Decision. 07.07.2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney and others ........Appellants Versus Kultar Singh son of Gurdial Singh s/o Curdit Singh, 3 Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana ...Respondent Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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. 1. The appeal by the insurance company arises out of an award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a claim by the claimant for a compensation for injury sustained in a motor accident in a collision between the jeep that he was travelling and the bus. The Tribunal found the bus to have been driven rashly and negligently and fixed the liability on the bus owner/insured and its insurer. The claimant was a police officer, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, aged 45 years, at the time of accident. It was elicited in the evidence that he had been confined to bed for six months on account of injuries and he had suffered also shortening of the leg by 3/4” FAO No.44 of 1992 -2- and weakening of eye sight on account of head injury. For the fracture of hip bone, the doctor had certified that the claimant had a permanent disablement of 50%. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the permanent disability for shortening of the limb and for impairment of eye sight. For special diet, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.6,000/-. For prolonged hospitalization and the suffering undergone, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.2,000/- for consultation fee and Rs.30,000/- for prosthesis of replacement of hip bone. Taking into account that the police officer had suffered a serious impairment in his movement, the Tribunal found that his prospects of promotion had been sullied and while making particular reference to the fact that two of his juniors had also been promoted, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as special damages for loss of prospects of promotion and enjoyment of higher status. Overall, the Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs.3 lacs. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company pleads that the bus was falsely implicated in the accident and it was inconceivable that the driver could have run away especially when the collision was alleged to have been with a police vehicle and when there were gun totting policemen on escort to the claimant, who was himself a high ranking officer. This is substantially a question of fact and I do not want to interfere on an assessment made by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence. Learned counsel argues also on the compensation as having been assessed high by providing for compensation for permanent disablement and also FAO No.44 of 1992 -3- special damages for loss of promotion. Permanent disability that impairs the movements and subjects a person to suffer inconveniences is a distinct head of claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, even apart from loss of earning power. The provision for loss of prospects of promotion and the indignity of having to see the juniors getting promoted was in the nature of special damages and a Tribunal could be justified in making provision for such claims under special circumstances. There is no duplication of the award by providing for damages for permanent disability and also special damages for loss of prospects of promotion and other difficulties that a person in service had to undergo. In any event, the insurer shall not be entitled to urge the question of quantum in an appeal. 3. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 07, 2010 Pankaj*