FAO No.5148 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5148 of 2002 Date of Decision. 06.09.2010 Manni Devi wife of Ghasita Ram, resident of village Jeoli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Patiala ......Appellant Versus Vikramjit Singh alias Bittu son of Jaswant Singh and others ......Respondents 2. FAO No.5149 of 2002 3. FAO No.5150 of 2001 Ram Karan son of Ghasita Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Vikramjit Singh alias Bittu son of Jaswant Singh and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s). None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Piyush Gagneja, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the respondent No.3. 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. All the three appeals are at the instance of the claimants seeking for enhancement. FAO No.5148 of 2002 is for enhancement for compensation for injury suffered by a lady, who was 50 years of FAO No.5148 of 2002 -2- age. FAO No.5149 of 2002 is at the instance of the father and grand parents of the minor child aged one year. FAO No.5150 of 2002 was a claim arising out of death of the wife of the claimant, who was 25 years of age. For the death of the child, the compensation granted was Rs.60,000/- and for death of the lady compensation of Rs.1 lac and for injury sustained Rs.50,000/- had been awarded. 2. The accident is an admitted fact where the insured's truck ran over the deceased and caused extensive injury to the claimant Manni Devi when they were standing on the side of the road. It was her contention as AW-5 that she had been taking treatment at the hospital from 9.4.2000 date of accident to 9.5.2000. She had been operated upon twice and implants were made at both hands and the leg. The doctor, who treated the claimant was examined as AW-4. He gave evidence to the effect that he was a Medical Officer in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chanidgarh and the injuries found on the claimant were as follows:- “1. Lacerated wound 1 inch on the dorsum of left forearm, margines irregular bleeding. 2. Abrasion 0.5x1.5 cm on the nose red in colour. 3. Deformity unnatural mobility, creption pain tenderness right forearm. Advised X.ray and ortho consultation. 4. Deformity, creption unnatural mobility right leg, lower 1/3rd. Advised X-ray and ortho consultation. 5. Complaints of chest pain. Advised X-ray Chest and surgical consultation. 6. Bruise left side of chest 1”x1” red in colour. FAO No.5148 of 2002 -3- 7. Inverted trangular shape lacerated wound measuring one arm 2” and other arm 3” on the scalp margin irregular bleeding profusely. Advised x-ray. 8. Abrasion on the right ear 1x1 cm. Red in colour. 9. Abrasion 1”x1” on the right forearm dorsum aspect. He had stated that the patient was operated on 26.4.2000 for fracture on right forearm and square nailing was done and POP applied. He had also stated that the patient had brought some medicines from outside whereas some medicines were provided at the hospital also. He had not spoken about any permanent disability. She had herself given evidence to the effect that she was working in the fields as agriculture labour getting about Rs.100/- per day and after the accident, she has not been able to work. With no documentary evidence at all adduced, the Tribunal fixed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The manner of ascertainment of compensation by the Tribunal leaves much to be desired, for a compensation is required to be dealt with under each one of the heads that the law permits of. 3. For a month long hospitalization, in the absence of any documents, I would also provide for attendant charges at Rs.5,000/-. Since there had been implants and she was put on plaster of paris, she would have required further visits to the hospital and I would provide for transportation charges of Rs.5,000/-. For a month long hospitalization and for post hospitalization, I would provide for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. She would have lost her employment during the period of injury and subsequently also and I would take FAO No.5148 of 2002 -4- that for three months she would not have been gainfully employed. The income, which she had as per the hospital record, was Rs.1,000/- per month and I would provide for a loss of income as Rs.5,000/-. I do not see any scope for providing for any loss earning capacity since it was not brought out through the medical evidence that any such loss had been occasioned. 4. If all the amounts are to be aggragated, the amount would fall less than Rs.50,000/-. I do not find that any case for enhancement of claim is made out. The appeal in FAO No.5148 of 2002 deserves to be dismissed. 5. With reference to a claim for compensation for death of a child aged one year, although the claimants were the father and the grand parents, I would take the father alone to be legally entitled to any sum. It is difficult to ascertain the compensation for death of a child on the basis of any dependency. The decisions have veered to an approximation of about Rs.2 lacs as compensation for death of an infant to a parent that would include all the components that would be legally permissible such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss that may be occasioned in future (see Priya Vasant Kalgutkar Vs. Murad Shaikh and others AIR 2010 SC 40). The compensation, which has been awarded as Rs.60,000/-, is raised to Rs.2 lacs. The amount in excess shall bear interest @6% from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. 6. In FAO No.5051 of 2002, the case arise out of death of a house wife, who was the wife of the claimant. The Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.1 lac without discussing the heads of FAO No.5148 of 2002 -5- claim. She was also an agriculture labourer and it was sought to be contended on behalf of the husband that she was also earning Rs.100-130/- per day. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I would take her annual income to be Rs.15,000/- providing for 1/3rd deduction for her personal expenses and take the contribution to the husband at Rs.10,000/- per annum. I would provide a multiplier of 18 and take the loss to be Rs.1,80,000/-. I would add Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and provide for a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate and funeral expenses. In all, for the death of the wife, the amount that shall become payable would be Rs.2 lacs and the amount in excess of what was already awarded by the Tibunal shall also likewise attract interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment. FAO No.5148 of 2002 is dismissed and FAO Nos.5149 and 5150 of 2002 are allowed party in the manner refered to abvoe. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 6, 2010 Pankaj*