FAO No.366 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No.366 of 2003 Date of Decision:-17.9.2009 Prem Parkash Kapoor ...Appellant Versus Amar Singh alias Amra Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ajit Attri, Advocate for Mr.J.S.Virk, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral): Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has urged that the claim petition was dismissed only on the ground that the claimant-appellant had not suffered any permanent disability. Heard. The basic element mentioned in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 entitling the claimant-appellant for compensation is only when he suffers any permanent disability on account of injury suffered by him by involvement of a motor vehicle and he was not bound to prove rashness or negligence. I have gone through the statement of Dr.C.R.Khatri PW2. He has stated that the claimant had suffered physical disability to the extent of 6% attributed to limitation of movements of the right ankle joint, but during his cross-examination, he has admitted that the limitation of movements of right ankle joint are temporary in nature and may improve with the passage of time, though he has stated that FAO No.366 of 2003 2 chances of improvement were less but he could not dare to say that disability suffered by the claimant was of permanent in nature. As such, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 stand affirmed. I have also gone through the other issues but I do not find much to disturb the findings on remaining issues also as such the same are also affirmed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 17.9.2009 Judge AS