FAO No.225 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.225 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2011 AJMER SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. SUMEET SHEOKAND, ADVOCATE FOR MR. R.C. TACORIA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2, AND 4. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. MR. R.K. BASHAMBOO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONENT NO.5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) The claim for enhancement of compensation is made in a case where the driver had an accident resulting in facial disfigurement on account of Haryana Roadways bus hitting against him when it was coming from the opposite direction. It was stated in the evidence that he had immediately become unconscious and the driver of the Haryana Roadways himself had admitted him in the hospital and a DDR was also registered on the statement given by the driver of the Roadways Hem Dutt. While discussing the issue of negligence the Tribunal found the claimant's FAO No.225 of 1992 -2- contention went unsubstantiated even while it observed that the driver of Haryana Roadways had given evidence to the effect that it was drizzling on that day and when he applied brakes the bus skidded and dashed against the other bus which the claimant was driving. This evidence ought to have been taken sufficient for the Tribunal to find that no negligence could have been attributed to the claimant and that the negligence could have been only on the part of the driver of Haryana Roadways. The oral evidence of the claimant was that he remained admitted in the hospital from 5.6.1989 to 22.6.1989 and he incurred `3000/- for his treatment. PW3 Dr. P.K.Soni in his statement had affirmed the same regarding the hospitalization and treatment when he was got admitted in the surgical ward initially and later shifted to orthopaedic ward. The Tribunal made reference to the fact that Doctor had not assessed whether he had any fracture and he has stated some medicines were purchased by the claimant himself but he was not prepared to say the actual charges incurred by him. The disability which had been assessed at 22%-23% was also stated by him could be rectified to 5% or 7%. If the Tribunal awarded `12,000/- as compensation under Section 140, I am not able to see as to how claimant would claim enhancement without a modicum of proof towards his medical expenses or how the disability could have in any way impacted his earning capacity, I would have provided for the same, if there had been any evidence with reference to the loss of his income and the period of such loss due to his injury. If the appeal has failed, it fails by the lapse of the appellant himself. The appeal is dismissed. January 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE