Judgment:
Archana arora FAO No.570 of 1993 1 2014.01.30 17:03 I am the author of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.570 of 1993 Date of decision January 24, 2014 Sarla Sachdeva ....... Appellant Versus Union of India and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. H. S. Bhullar , Advocate for Mr. A. S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate **** 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 compensation for injury suffered in a motor accident that had resulted in fracture of nasal bone and fractures in both the legs. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation provided for medical expenses for the bills covered and made provision for future expenses at `15,000/- provided for `5,000/- for attendant charges,transportation charges at `10,000/- and assessed `20,000/- for pain and suffering and considered the fact that the disability was 40% and awarded `30,000/- for disability caused. It assessed total compensation of `1,02,000/-.
2. The counsel argues that since the fracture FAO No.570 of 1993 2 was in both legs, future operation was also contemplated. The provision for future medical expenses must have been `50,000/- and for considering the fact of pain and suffering that both the legs were fractured, she could not have walked and compensation for pain and suffering must have been high. Loss due to disability must also be taken as `80,000/-. The provision for non-pecuniary heads like pain and suffering or loss of amenities are in some way judicial approximation. Schedule-II to Motor Vehicles Act is an indication for assessment. The amendment in law was made in the year 1994. The compensation assessed towards pain and suffering must be taken as fairly substantial since the statute provided for only modest sum of `2500/- for pain and suffering for permanent disability. I am prepared to however, consider the argument that both legs were fractured and she would have been immobilized and she could have suffered enormous pain. The provision for medical expenses in future cannot be more than what she had already incurred on past expenses, for rehabilitation treatment it cannot cause more than what costed initially. The loss of amenities also would be modestly increased and I will tabulate all the heads of claim as under:- Heads of claim Tribunal High Court S.No.` ` ` 1 Loss of Income 6600 6600/- 2 Medical expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 3 Hospital charges 15,000/- 15,000/- 4 Attendant charges 5,000/- 20,000/- 5 Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/- 6 Pain and suffering 20,000/- 50,000/- 7 Disability 8 Loss of amenities 30,000/- 40,000/- FAO No.570 of 1993 3 Heads of claim Tribunal High Court 9 Total 1,02,000/- 1,50,000/- The over all compensation payable shall be `1,50,000/-. The amount in excess of what has already been granted by the Tribunal shall attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined already by the Tribunal.
3. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 24, 2014 archana