Judgment:
FAO No.33 of 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.33 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision.30.06.2014 Nafe Singh son of Sh.
Mehar Chand ......Appellant Versus Arun Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
None for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN1 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.
C.M.No.6331-CII of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 28.03.2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.
Application is allowed.
FAO No.33 of 2000 1.
The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident that took place on 02.02.1994.
The accident had resulted in fracture of the elbow with “ulnar nerve paley with stiffness with lysosition ossifacans”.
(sic).I am not very sure about the correctness of the technical term employed but I believe that this injury has in a way caused very serious impairment of normal function of his hand.
The doctor had certified the disability at 75%.
The Tribunal Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.33 of 2000 (O&M) -2- while assessing the compensation provided for ` 72,300/- towards medical expenses, ` 1 lac towards pain and suffering and for disability caused and ` 1 lac towards future earning.
I find that the assessment had been fairly liberal and the total amount arrived at ` 2,72,500/- would not require any modification.
2.
In the manner of assessing the entitlement, the Tribunal found that the claimant was a driver of a truck which dashed against the tractor.
It made note of the fact that the road was sufficiently broad and accident had been head on collision.
The Tribunal attributed negligence on the part of both the drivers including the claimant and after assessing the compensation made partial abatement of the claim to the extent of 50%.
Even in the grounds of appeal, I only find that the claimant had contended that contributory negligence ought not to have been attributed to the driver but he has not found any fault with the total assessment regarding the various heads of claim possible for the injuries suffered by him.
I cannot find even the issue of contributory negligence as found by the Tribunal to be in any way erroneous.
It has been done on the basis of evidence brought before the Tribunal having in particular regard to the fact that it was the head on collision in broad road.
I will not find any reason to interfere with the award passed already making an abatement to the claim to the extent of 50% for contributory negligence.
3.
The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE June 30, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.02 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh