FAO No.851 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.851 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: February 22, 2011 ONKAR SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS GEETA RAM AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. KAMAL GOEL, ADVCOATE AND MR. JAI BHAGWAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. AMIT RAWAL, ADVCOATE FOR MR. S.P.SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for amputation suffered by the claimant. He was a workman under the owner of the truck which was involved in the accident. It was a case where the driver of the truck had dashed against a stationary truck with iron rods protruding from it. The accident had taken place in the thick of the night and evidently, it was a case of error in judgement of the driver of the truck in ramming against a stationary truck. 2. The attempt at the trial was to show that he was a workman employed under the owner of the truck. It came through the evidence that the driver and cleaner were some other persons and the driver had himself FAO No.851 of 1993 -2- died in the accident. Even if he had been a workman, it cannot be said that he was travelling as workman in the course of his duty and the Tribunal found that he was a passenger going from some other place alongwith two more persons who got into the truck on the way. If the negligence of the driver of the truck was an established fact, then the claim could be still successfully prosecuted against the owner who is vicariously liable for the act of his driver. The owner of the truck Geeta Ram who is arrayed as respondent No.1 ought to have been made liable for the accident, even if the Tribunal found that he was not a workman to whom the benefit under the Workmen Compensation Act could be attracted to make the insurer liable. The claim ought to have been awarded against the owner of the vehicle taking the claimant as passenger in the truck. 3. There was evidence to the effect that he had a fairly long spell of hospitalization from 2.4.1980 to 14.5.1980. He had produced bills to the extent of `7900/- and the Doctor who had treated him gave evidence to the effect that he had been operated thrice. I have attempted to standardize the method of assessing the compensation for injuries to effect it fully the pain and suffering component as well as the loss of amenities for a person who suffers privation of organ such as amputation of leg in Madan Lal Papneja vs. State of Haryana and others, FAO No.422 of 1993 dated 12.11.2010. I will tabulate the compensation as below that would become payable and make respondent No.1 liable for the same. Injury Cases Age: 20 Period of Hospitalization 2.4.80 to 14.5.80 Occupation & Income - 500 Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court FAO No.851 of 1993 -3- Injury Cases Sr.No. Amount ` Amount ` 1. Loss of income from to 2. Medical Expenses: (i) Medicines 7900 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 5000 (iv) Special Diet 5000 3. Transport - 5000 4. Pain & Suffering – per fracture/per surgery 25000 5. Disability 70% 70% 6. Loss of earning capacity 70% 70% Income x % of loss of earning power x multiplier 75,600 7. Reduction in life expectancy/Loss of amenities 50,000 8. Loss of prospect of marriage 25,000 Total 1,98,500/- 4. This amount shall also bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The right of enforcement of the award shall avail to the claimant against respondent No.1 only and the insurance company shall stand exonerated. 6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. February 22, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE