Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.18 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:06.12.2012.
Subhash Chand ...Appellant versus Sukhdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal Advocate, for the appellant.
None for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
---- 1.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
No.2.
To be referred to the reporters or No.?.
No.3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?.
No.---- K.Kannan, J.
(Oral) The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries sustained in an accident that resulted in fracture of his right thigh.
A surgery was performed and the fracture was reduced by insertion of an iron plate.
He was a driver by profession and according to him, he had been unable to continue as a driver.
In this case, apart from the fact that he was admitted in the hospital for a fracture, no evidence has been brought to substantiate FAO No.18 of 1992 (O&M) -2- the nature of disability that he has suffered and that he would become disabled at all times to drive a vehicle.
An insertion of a rod is not meant to cause an obstruction for uniting a fracture; on the other hand, it is only to strengthen the bone.
An insertion of a rod therefore ought not to be taken as causing a new disability.
Without medical evidence with reference to the alleged disability to drive the vehicle, I cannot accommodate any plea for a consideration more than provided for loss of income for two months.
The Tribunal has granted ` 4,500/- towards medicines and has provided for another ` 22,500/- towards pain and suffering, disability etc.I wanted to re-examine the several components of non-pecuniary heads that would become relevant for consideration.
If I provide for attendant charges for `2,500/-, for special diet ` 2,500/-, transportation charges at ` 2,500/- and ` 7,500/- towards pain and suffering, it would still not exceed ` 27,000/- which had been awarded by the Tribunal.
I find no reason to enhance the same and the appeal is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06 12.2012 sanjeev