FAO No.4668 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4668 of 2005
Date of decision 24.12.2008
Jagdish Rai .....Appellant
versus
Dyal Singh and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. S. L. Chander Shekhar Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. G. D. Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.3 Insurance Company.
K. Kannan, J.
1. The appellant seeks enhancement of claim for compensation for
the injuries sustained in the motor accident. The fact of accident, the nature
of injuries and the liability of the Insurance Company are all admitted and
the dispute relates only to the quantum of compensation.
2. The Tribunal has elaborately considered the nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had
proved the fact of medical treatment in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital in Dr.
Karam Singh’s Ward, Amritsar. The medical bills have been proved and
marked through PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-12, PW-15, PW-16
and PW-19. Physician who treated the patient Dr. Partap Singh, Assistant
Professor, Department of Ortho has also been examined as PW-23. He had
given a disability certificate which had been marked as PW-23/A which
bore evidence of the fact that both the bones of left leg and left femur had
been implanted with plating and there had been limitation of movements at
the hip and restriction of extreme degree of ankle movements that
aggregated the disability assessment at 30 % which was permanent. The
FAO No.4668 of 2005 -2-
Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- for disablement and all the medical bills
which had been produced by the petitioner were accepted as true and for the
actual bills of Rs.43,720/- produced, it fully awarded the same. It also took
note of the fact that the petitioner was an Income Tax Assessee doing the
work of as a Private contractor and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month
approximately. The Income Tax records who had been proved through PW-
11 Darshan Lal for years 1998 to 2003-04. The income was seen to be
varying between Rs.88,000/- to Rs.100,000/- per year and for the period of
2002-03 his income had been assessed at Rs.71,704/-. Considering the
annual income of the claimant, the Tribunal found that the claimant would
have suffered loss of income for four months and compensation of
Rs.30,000/- had been given. The Tribunal had awarded also Rs.5,000/-
towards attendant charges. The Tribunal had also admitted the future
diminution of earning at Rs.40,000/- and towards special diet, extra
nourishment and pain and suffering, the Tribunal had estimated the claim of
Rs.20,000/-. Every possible head of claim has been properly assessed and I
do not think that the Tribunal had committed any error in the appreciation of
evidence. The petitioner-appellant has not placed any proof to better his
prospects of additional amount to be directed to be paid as compensation.
The reasoning and the estimation of damages as made by the Tribunal
accords with evidence and I find no reason to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal.
3. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.
24.12.2008 ( K. KANNAN ) A. KAUNDAL JUDGE