FAO No.927 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.927 of 1994 Date of Decision. 05.10.2010 Jahur Khan son of Shri Sonia r/o village Nangal, Mobarikpur, Tehsil F.P. Jhirka, Distt. Gurgaon ......Appellant Versus Shanti Narain son of Shri Koda Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, 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 by the claimant is for enhancement of compensation and the scope of this appeal is only to determine the quantum. The claimant was a driver of bus, who in an accident suffered fracture of the hip and the right leg requiring surgical intervention and reduction of fracture by an implant. The claimant contended that he was treated as an inpatient for two months and the surgical reduction has resulted also in shortening of the limb by 2 ½”. Before the Tribunal, the doctor who had treated him at Gurgaon is examined to say that he assessed the disability to be FAO No.927 of 1994 -2- permanent and that extent of functional disability was 25%. The Tribunal observed that the respondents had not disputed the evidence of claimant regarding his handicap and did not even cross- examine the doctor when he spoke about the disability. The Tribunal, therefore, held that he cannot do any work on account of the accident. I cannot accept the plea that a shortening of the limb will completely result in his inability to drive. If such disability had been referred to in the evidence of the doctor or it was spoken to by the driver himself then I will give some credibility to such a contention. To a temporary difficulty that a person has for having to do work, ought not to be understood as completely resulting in loss of his income earning capacity. For a 25% functional disability, which is permanent, I would accord to him a loss of earning capacity to the tune of 15%. 2. The claimant was said to be earning Rs.3,000/- and this has been spoken to by his own employer. I will take the same and take the annual income to be Rs.36,000/-. Since I am taking the injury to have resulted only in 15% loss of earning capacity, I would hold that the yearly loss of earning capacity is Rs.5400/-. He was aged 32 years and I would, therefore, adopt a multiplier of 16 and take the total loss of earning capacity to him at Rs.86,400/-. I would provide for his hospitalization and medical expenses another Rs.5,000/- and further provide for Rs.1500/- towards attendant charges for two months @ Rs.750/- per month. The claimant had fracture of the hip and surgery that hospitalized him for two months and I would, therefore, provide for another Rs.20,000/- towards pain FAO No.927 of 1994 -3- and suffering. For the permanent disability that he had suffered, I will also provide for loss of amenities and reduction of expectation of his life by another Rs.5,000/-. For special diet, I will provide for Rs.2,000/- and for transportation, I would provide for another Rs.3,000/-. In all the amount that will become payable, would be Rs.1,22,900/-, which I would round off to Rs.1,23,000/-. The claimant will have an additional amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 05, 2010 Pankaj*