Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukh Ram @ Vikram Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 April, 2011

Author: K.Kannan

Bench: K.Kannan

                           FAO No.2140 of 1998                            -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      FAO No.2140 of 1998

                                       DATE OF DECISION: April 5, 2011

MUKH RAM @ VIKRAM SINGH                                  ...APPELLANT

                                  VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              ...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. J.S. YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.
         MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA.

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had injuries in his chest that caused Pneumothorax and visceral injury in the abdomen. It appears that soon after the injuries an exploratory laparoetomy had been done through the upper mid-line incision. The peritoneal cavity had been found full of blood and the anterior and superior surface of the Diaphram had been badly lacerated. He had been sutured with thick catgut and he had been taking treatment continuously for about 5-6 months. The site of incision made for draining pus and blood had caused keloid and even after full recovery from the injury, he still had some pus discharge from the keloid. The Doctor had explained a keloid to be an enlargement of the superficial skin and it was not likely to impair any of his normal activities. While determining the compensation the Tribunal provided for loss of FAO No.2140 of 1998 -2- income for three months at `4500/-, `55,000/- for medication, `5000/- for pain & suffering, `15,000/- for special diet and `4000/- for loss of enjoyment of life. He remained in the hospital for nearly 1½ months. The counsel says that there had been no provision made for transportation and attendant charges. I will provide @ `2500/- for transportation and `2500/- for attendant charges. I will enhance the claim for pain & suffering to a further amount of `5000/- and for possible medical expenses for the recurrent problem of oozing from the keloids, I will provide for an additional amount of another `10,000/-. Over all, the claimant shall be entitled to additional amount of `20,000/-. The same shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal.

2. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

April 5, 2011                                             (K.KANNAN)
Gulati                                                       JUDGE