IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1601 of 1993(O&M) Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Pardeep Kumar ....Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondents 1, 2, and 4. None for respondent No.3. ---- 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 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for a person, who had fracture of a finger and fracture of the upper end of the humerus. He was hospitalized for three days and discharged. He had also injuries on the left side scalp about 6 cm above the left ear. Dr. Atul Gupta, who had immediately examined him, has produced the MLR which was exhibited as A1. 2. As per the evidence of AW2-Dr.B.S. Brar, he had been admitted at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 30.08.1991 and as per the x-ray FAO No.1601 of 1993 (O&M) - 2 - report given by Dr. P.C.Aggarwal, he found a fracture of the humerus and the fracture of proximal phalanax of left little finger. 3. The injury in the left side of the scalp seemed to have a delayed reaction as brought through the evidence of PW5-Dr. Sarabjeet Singh, who would reveal about what was thought to be a case of allergic conjuctivitis was seen on subsequent visits to the doctor as having an aetiology to the accident injury. The doctor gave evidence to the effect that it was possible that the glaucoma of the left eye could be due to an injury sustained about two months to two years earlier. He specifically stated that the claimant had initially complained of allergic conjuctivitis but was not there subsequently and he was having some other problem. 4. It is not possible to find out from the evidence of the doctor, Sarabjeet Singh whether a defective vision due to glaucoma could not be corrected by spectacles. I cannot, therefore, find that a disability such as a slight defective vision caused any impact on his earning skills. The claimant was an Advocate by profession and he had given evidence to the effect that he could not attend to his work for three months. For the fractures which he had suffered and the injury on his head, I will increase the component of pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal had provided for expenses on account of treatment of Rs.2,000/- and I cannot find any better evidence to increase the same. For a defective vision due to glaucoma for which the doctor's evidence was that it could also be on account of the accident, I take that to be resultant to the accident. I take the inconvenience and the loss of amenities that could have resulted by a defective vision by onset of glaucoma at Rs.15,000/-. I will assess the FAO No.1601 of 1993 (O&M) - 3 - loss of income at Rs.9,000/- for three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The overall compensation will be, therefore, payable by an addition of Rs.34,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability amongst the respondents shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal already. 5. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.02.2011 sanjeev