Present: Ms. Indu Bala Advocate Vs. Sarup Alias Sarfu and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153056
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantPresent: Ms. Indu Bala Advocate
RespondentSarup Alias Sarfu and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.1651 of 2011 (o&m) date of decision:30.06.2014 sukhbir singh ..appellant versus sarup alias sarfu and others ...respondents ii. fao no.1652 of 2011 (o&m) parveen kumar ..appellant versus sarup alias sarfu and others ...respondents iii. fao no.2972 of 2011 (o&m) bijender ..appellant versus sarup alias sarfu and others ...respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: ms.indu bala, advocate, for mr.n.d.achint, advocate, for the appellants. mr.nitin mittal, advocate, for mr.subhash goyal, advocate, for respondent no.3-insurance company. ---- kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.1651 of 2011 (o&m) -2- k.kannan, j. 1. all the three cases are connected as they arise out of the same accident that took place on 23.08.2008.i.fao no.1651 of 2011 2. the appeal in fao no.1651 of 2011 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant- sukhbir that were said to have resulted in fracture in his head and serious internal injuries in his stomach. he had been taken to the public health centre at taoru and later referred to gurgaon for treatment. he had taken treatment at paras hospital, gurgaon and still later at lifeaid medical centre, gurgaon where he remained admitted from 23.08.2008 to 31.08.2008. the discharge summary that had been issued at that time showed that he had rupture of the spleen with urinary bladder injury. the tribunal, while assessing compensation, provided for `98,400/- for the bills brought on record. the claimant had been granted an amount of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering and i will increase the claim to compensation for pain and suffering at `25,000/-. it is not very clear from the evidence as regards other medical expenses for attendant charges, special diet and transportation and i will add `7,500/- under the said three heads. there is no evidence regarding loss of income that the nature of injury would have kept him out of employment at least for three months and i would provide for kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.1651 of 2011 (o&m) -3- `10,000/- as loss of income. there does not appear to have permanent injury arising out of the accident. there shall be, therefore, an additional compensation of `22,500/- which will attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. the award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. ii. fao no.1652 of 2011 3. the appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant-parveen kumar. he is reported to have suffered a fracture of his left leg. the medical expenses proved on record totalled up to `12,344/- and the tribunal awarded `12,400/-. he had a fracture of the leg and the tribunal ought to have provided for the same, which i estimate at `10,000/- for pain and suffering. it appears that he had been treated for about a week. he must have therefore spent for transportation and hospitalization as well. i would provide for `10,000 for the same. this would mean an additional amount of `20,000/- over what was already awarded by the tribunal and the same shall attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. the right of enforcement shall be available against the insurer. the award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.1651 of 2011 (o&m) -4- iii. fao no.2972 of 2011 4. the appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant-bijender. he had suffered fracture of 2nd metacarpal and trapezium of right hand. the medical bills brought on record showed that he had spent about `2,00,987/- and the tribunal granted `2,01,000/-. the disability assessed of his right hand by the doctor at 70%. an injury in his hand cannot result 70% of the whole body and i take, therefore, the disability qua limb. it is seen from the evidence that he was working at senior secondary school and he had stated that after the accident, he could not attend the school. it is not very clear whether he had been dismissed from service or there was any particular disability that could hamper his continuation in employment. the doctor had merely referred to the disability and how his disability would get translated to loss of earning capacity must have been a matter of evidence. i find the assessment made already providing for `1,40,000/- as going towards loss of amenities is substantial and takes care of even the expenses like attendant charges, special diet and transportation. the pain and suffering seems to be the only component which is assessed on a lower side and for the fracture, if the claimant had been provided for `25,000/-, i would find no reason to make that addition even, for, the disability qua limb is assessed fairly high and i find no reason increasing it again under kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.1651 of 2011 (o&m) -5- the head of pain and suffering. there is no ground made for enhancement of compensation. the award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. (k.kannan) judge3006.2014 sanjeev kumar sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1651 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:30.06.2014 Sukhbir Singh ..Appellant versus Sarup alias Sarfu and others ...Respondents II.

FAO No.1652 of 2011 (O&M) Parveen Kumar ..Appellant versus Sarup alias Sarfu and others ...Respondents III.

FAO No.2972 of 2011 (O&M) Bijender ..Appellant versus Sarup alias Sarfu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: Ms.Indu Bala, Advocate, for Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr.Nitin Mittal, Advocate, for Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

---- Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1651 of 2011 (O&M) -2- K.Kannan, J.

1.

All the three cases are connected as they arise out of the same accident that took place on 23.08.2008.I.FAO No.1651 of 2011 2.

The appeal in FAO No.1651 of 2011 is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant- Sukhbir that were said to have resulted in fracture in his head and serious internal injuries in his stomach.

He had been taken to the Public Health Centre at Taoru and later referred to Gurgaon for treatment.

He had taken treatment at Paras Hospital, Gurgaon and still later at Lifeaid Medical Centre, Gurgaon where he remained admitted from 23.08.2008 to 31.08.2008.

The discharge summary that had been issued at that time showed that he had rupture of the spleen with urinary bladder injury.

The Tribunal, while assessing compensation, provided for `98,400/- for the bills brought on record.

The claimant had been granted an amount of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering and I will increase the claim to compensation for pain and suffering at `25,000/-.

It is not very clear from the evidence as regards other medical expenses for attendant charges, special diet and transportation and I will add `7,500/- under the said three heads.

There is no evidence regarding loss of income that the nature of injury would have kept him out of employment at least for three months and I would provide for Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1651 of 2011 (O&M) -3- `10,000/- as loss of income.

There does not appear to have permanent injury arising out of the accident.

There shall be, therefore, an additional compensation of `22,500/- which will attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

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

II.

FAO No.1652 of 2011 3.

The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant-Parveen Kumar.

He is reported to have suffered a fracture of his left leg.

The medical expenses proved on record totalled up to `12,344/- and the Tribunal awarded `12,400/-.

He had a fracture of the leg and the Tribunal ought to have provided for the same, which I estimate at `10,000/- for pain and suffering.

It appears that he had been treated for about a week.

He must have therefore spent for transportation and hospitalization as well.

I would provide for `10,000 for the same.

This would mean an additional amount of `20,000/- over what was already awarded by the Tribunal and the same shall attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment.

The right of enforcement shall be available against the insurer.

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

Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1651 of 2011 (O&M) -4- III.

FAO No.2972 of 2011 4.

The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant-Bijender.

He had suffered fracture of 2nd metacarpal and trapezium of right hand.

The medical bills brought on record showed that he had spent about `2,00,987/- and the Tribunal granted `2,01,000/-.

The disability assessed of his right hand by the doctor at 70%.

An injury in his hand cannot result 70% of the whole body and I take, therefore, the disability qua limb.

It is seen from the evidence that he was working at Senior Secondary School and he had stated that after the accident, he could not attend the school.

It is not very clear whether he had been dismissed from service or there was any particular disability that could hamper his continuation in employment.

The doctor had merely referred to the disability and how his disability would get translated to loss of earning capacity must have been a matter of evidence.

I find the assessment made already providing for `1,40,000/- as going towards loss of amenities is substantial and takes care of even the expenses like attendant charges, special diet and transportation.

The pain and suffering seems to be the only component which is assessed on a lower side and for the fracture, if the claimant had been provided for `25,000/-, I would find no reason to make that addition even, for, the disability qua limb is assessed fairly high and I find no reason increasing it again under Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.1651 of 2011 (O&M) -5- the head of pain and suffering.

There is no ground made for enhancement of compensation.

The award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE3006.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document