IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.332 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision:11.02.2011 Seo Ram ....Appellant versus Pardeep Kumar and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, 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. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for a person, who had suffered fracture of the right forearm and fracture of the right leg. The claimant was said to be admitted in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and taking treatment for two months and later at PGI, Chandigarh, as an outdoor patient. The Tribunal awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 2. Although the claimant had stated that he had been taking prolonged treatment, no medical bills had been produced at a Court to make appropriate assessment. The claimant made a fantastic claim that FAO No.332 of 1994 (O&M) - 2 - he had spent Rs.2 lakh, but did not file even one slip of paper in Court for proof of expenses. He had undergone a surgery at the government hospital and even if the operation charges had been free, I would assume that he must have purchased medicines and I will make an estimate of Rs.5,000/- towards medicines. There is also evidence that he had been taking treatment initially at Patiala and later at Chandigarh. I will, therefore, also provide for transport expenses. He was said to be a transporter and cultivator, earning Rs.5,000/- and on account of his injuries, he had been unable to do his work and was being paid Rs.800/-. 3. The doctor, who had been treating him, was examined in the Court to say that the fractures had resulted in impediment in movements of the lower limb and shortening of limb by 2 ½ inches. I cannot find that the disability could have any immediate bearing on a permanent basis regarding his earning capacity. However, for the inconvenience and loss of amenities for the injuries, suitable compensation has to be provided. The claimant will have to be compensated for the two fractures that he had and for surgical interventions that was required to be done for him. 4. At the appellate Court the appellant filed an application to receive additional document under Order 41 Rule 27. It is a certificate that was said to have been issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala and even at the head of the certificate, it reads, 'not valid for medico-legal purposes'. Any certificate by a doctor cannot be admitted into evidence unless it is a certificate drawn up by the Medical Board duly constituted and the certificate is put through the evidence at the appropriate time for FAO No.332 of 1994 (O&M) - 3 - parties to join issues on the correctness of the certificate and how the certificate could be used for finding whether the disability was permanent or temporary and whether the disability could have impacted the earning skills of the deceased. I will, therefore, discard the certificate and proceed to assess the compensation on the basis of the evidence already available. The tabulation given below will indicate the several heads of claim which, in my view, would be just compensation in this case. Sr.No. Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Age:35 Period of hospitalization: 2 months 1. Medical expenses: medicines 5,000 Attendant charges 2,000 Special diet 3,000 2. Transport 5,000 3. Pain & Suffering- 12,500 per fracture/per surgery 10,000 + 2,500 4. Disability 50% 25,000 ______ _____ Total 40,000 52,500 5. There shall be a marginal increase and the amount to which it has been increased shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 6. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal already. 7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.02.2011 sanjeev