Jasbir Singh vs Jagdish Kumar And Others on 9 May, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jasbir Singh vs Jagdish Kumar And Others on 9 May, 2011

Bench: K. Kannan

FAO No. 983 of 2002                                1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                      FAO No. 983 of 2002
                                      Date of decision May 9, 2011


Jasbir Singh


                                                         .......   Appellant
                               Versus


Jagdish Kumar and others

                                                         ........Respondents

CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


Present:-          Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
                   for the appellant.

                   Mr. Madhu Sharma, Advocate
                   for the respondents.


                         ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had been hospitalized on 7.12.1997 for treatment in two hospitals in Patiala before he was sent to yet another hospital in Ludhiana. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of `1,25,000/- that included `50,000/- for pain and suffering, `10,000/- for loss of amenities in life. The petitioner who had two fractures in the leg ultimately suffered an amputation below the knee when gangrene had set in. Learned counsel states that the amount has not been properly assessed.

2. In case of amputation, it results in not merely loss FAO No. 983 of 2002 2 of amenities but also loss of earning power before the Tribunal. The evidence was that he was making a modest earning of `2,000/- by selling milk. In my view the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of future earning by taking 50% disability as also in 50% loss of earning power. I uphold the provision for medicines. I will also make a provision for attendant charges, special diet and the expenses for transport by the fact that the claimant was taking treatment in three different hospitals before his leg was amputated. The provision for loss of amenities would also be required to be increased for a young boy of 18 years to suffer an amputation which would severely restrict his mobility and take away an important component of the quality of life. I will also factor the loss of prospects of marriage for a person. I will proceed to tabulate the compensation under various heads as follows:-

Age Occupation Claimants S.No. Heads of Claim Tribunal High Court 1 Medicines `65,000/- `65,000/- 2 Attendant charges `5,000/- 3 Special diet `5,000/- 4 Transport `5,000/- 5 Pain and suffering `50,000/- `50,000/-

                    6 Loss of amenities        `10,000/-              `75,000/-`
                      Loss of        earning
                    7 power                                  50.00%                  50.00%
                      Loss of earning                                 `2,16,000/-
                      power (2000 x 50%
                    8 x12x18)
                      Loss of prospect of                             `25,000/-
                    9 marriage
                   10 Total                    `1,25,000/-            ` 4,46,000/-

3. The over all compensation comes to `4,46,000/-.

The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the FAO No. 983 of 2002 3 date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal.

4. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 9, 2011 archana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court