FAO No.3695 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3695 of 2004 Date of Decision.18.11.2010 Sujeet Singh aged 19 years son of Sh. Labh Singh r/o village Labana, Tehsil and District Ambala (Haryana) ......Appellant Versus Amar Singh driver No.156, Haryana Roadways, Ambala Depot now posted at sub-depot Naraingarh, District Ambala (Haryana) (Driver Bus No.HR-37-3906) and other ......Respondents Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rattan Sidhu, Sr. DAG, Haryana of the respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the insurance company. 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.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered by a 19 year old school boy student. He had suffered injuries in his leg that caused a fracture and he was treated in a local hospital as inpatient for 16 days and later remained admitted in Government Hospital for two months. The Medical Board had originally found that he had a 25% disability and the Tribunal wanted further substantiation of the fact by calling another doctor to examine him before giving evidence and testify. The doctor PW4, however, testified that disability was in the range of 10% to 12% and FAO No.3695 of 2004 -2- the Tribunal, therefore, provided for pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- for disability. In all, Rs.50,000/- was given as compensation. 2. The learned counsel would state that the Tribunal ought to have taken the percentage of disability as determined by the Medical Board and the compensation awarded must have been again on the basis that he had suffered a loss of earning capacity by virtue of the accident and future loss of earning must have been also calculated. The issue whether a person suffers loss of earning capacity is essentially a matter of evidence and cannot be a matter of conjecture. There must be an endeavour to find whether a particular disability impacted in any way the loss of earning as well. I cannot accept that by shortening of limb by a fracture, a person has lost earning capacity. A provision of Rs.20,000/- made by the Tribunal towards disability shall be understood as loss of amenities of life by functional disability that the claimant has suffered by a mal-united fracture and a shortening of the limb. Even for pain and suffering, I would look for a standard approach and I will take for a fracture of the limb a compensation of Rs.7500/- and for a surgical intervention another Rs.5,000/- and instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, I will raise it to Rs.12,500/-. The Tribunal has provided towards medicines Rs.20,000/- when the bills had been produced for Rs.19,250/-. I will retain the same. He had been under treatment for nearly two and half months and he was an inpatient during all this period. The Tribunal must have also provided for hospital expenses and special diet, which I will provide for an additional amount of FAO No.3695 of 2004 -3- Rs.5,000/- for two and half months. Learned counsel stats that he he was also working as a labourer and used to earn about Rs.80/- per day and during all the period of his treatment, he could not earn. I will take the loss as resulting for nearly three months at Rs.4500/- at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. In all, the total compensation will be Rs.62,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall bear interest @6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 18, 2010 Pankaj*