FAO No1394 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No1394 of 1992 Date of Decision. 07.12.2010 Satbir son of Maman Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Smt. Kiran wife of Major Partap Singh resident of 134 Sainik Vihar Delhi 110034 (driver ofJeep No.DAE-1380) and another ......Respondents Present: Mr. Davinder Sangwan, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 is at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained in a motor accident. The claimant was the injured, who was shown as the 1st petitioner and claimants No.2 and 3 were the parents, who had joined along with the 1st claimant to espouse the cause for the 1st claimant. The averment in the claim petition was that he had been seriously injured in his head and that he was not in a position to take care of his own interests. The Tribunal found that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by the driver-1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and made the owner responsible for the consequences of the accident and awarded compensation in favour of the claimant. It was previously alleged by the doctor, who had FAO No1394 of 1992 -2- examined the 1st claimant that there had been a psychiatric injury for the 1st claimant and it was not possible, however, for him to assess whether the nature of illness was temporary or permanent. The doctor, who had originally examined him had also given evidence in Court but the Tribunal having not been satisfied about the evidence had re-opened the case and had suo motu constituted a medical committee to examine the 1st claimant and give a report. 2. On first examination and report secured from the Medical Board, the Tribunal found that the claimant did not have any present ailment on account of the injuries suffered in the motor accident and awarded to the 1st claimant a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. It is against this award that the present appeal has been filed. 3. I have gone through the records and I find that the 1st claimant did not have any fracture or any other visible injury except that the accident which had caused head injuries, had temporarily resulted in an unconscious state and also had caused him some severe trauma that seemed to have a psychiatric impact on the 1st claimant's mental and physical condition. The most important aspect that a Tribunal would invariably see is to assess the compensation depending on the state of mental and physical condition at the time of examination at the trial and how far the illness could have impact on his future living as well. Past ailment or hospitalization are surely relevant but they are relevant only to the extent of assessing compensation for pain and suffering during the relevant period and also for assessing the medical expenses which were incurred and awarding to a claimant appropriate compensation. There is no ground FAO No1394 of 1992 -3- invariably to presume that a particular injury would result in permanent disability. In this case, a Committee was constituted at the instance of an order of the Tribunal and the report was given to the Court and marked as Ex.C1. The Medical Board comprising of the members were Dr. Jagdip Singh, who was the Chairman-cum- Superintendent of the Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak, Dr. P.S. Gahlaut, Assistant Professor of Medicine and Sh.S.C. Bhargav, Reader, Psychiatric Department. The report records the fact that he was admitted for observation at the Psychiatric ward on 31.03.1992 and he was observed and investigated from 31.03.1992 to 18.04.1992. It must be noticed that the Board had observed the claimant for a fairly long period and they must have taken every material fact for assessing the mental and physical condition of the claimant. The report observes finally that the patient was not showing any neurological or psychiatric abnormalities. This was the basis on which the Tribunal ultimately found that there had been no permanent disability for the claimant and the Tribunal had, therefore, assessed the compensation of Rs.15,000/- only for the pain and suffering and for a short period of hospitalization. 4. I have no ground to reappraise the compensation and the Tribunal has taken the relevant materials to come to the conclusion the way it did. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07 , 2010 Pankaj*