Assessment of compensation for permanent disability should consider future loss of earning capacity based on the percentage of functional disability.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals mentioned above, which have arisen out of the same award dated 28.2.2005, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

2. As per the case of the appellants-claimants on 8.4.2003 at about 10:30 a.m. appellant-claimant Chuni Ram alias Chunni Lal appellant of FAO No. 2265 of 2005 was driving scooter No. CHJ-200 while proceeding towards Zirakpur from Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh. Appellant-claimant Shano Devi of FAO No. 2264 of 2005 was pillion-rider on the said scooter. When they reached near Hallomajra Chowk, a car bearing registration No. CH-03C-3079 hit their scooter from behind. The said car was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 Tara Bahadur. As a result of which both the appellants suffered injuries.

3. Appellant-claimant Shano Devi claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest and claimant Chuni Ram alias Chunni Lal claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

4. The aforesaid claim petitions filed by the appellants were contested by respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Company Limited.

5. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- to appellant-claimant Shano Devi and Rs. 1,05,000/- to appellant-claimant Chuni Ram alias Chunni Lal.

6. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, both the appellants have preferred this appeal.

7. I have heard Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 3 in both the appeals and gone through the paper-book carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant Shano Devi has suffered 36% permanent disability qua upper limb but the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the amount of compensation and very less amount of compensation has been awarded. She further contended that similarly appellant Chuni Ram alias Chunni Lal has suffered 15% disability. He has been awarded only Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards permanent disability in lump sum. Thus, she contended that the mode of calculation of the compensation was not in accordance with law and the just and appropriate compensation has not been awarded.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that the appellant claimant Shano Devi was only a housewife. The disability suffered by her was only qua particular limb and not qua whole body. Similar is the position in case of Chuni Ram. Thus, he contended that learned Tribunal has awarded the just and appropriate compensation under all the heads.

10. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

11. Firstly, I take up the case of appellant-claimant Shano Devi. She has been awarded a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him. Appellant-claimant Shano Devi is the housewife. Her age was about 32 years at the time of the accident. She suffered fracture in her right upper limb in addition to other injuries on her body. Ex.P40 is the disability certificate wherein her permanent physical disability has been assessed as 36% with respect to the right upper limb. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation towards medical treatment, special diet, transportation as well as permanent disability. He has not awarded the compensation separately under all the heads. That was not the correct way to assess the compensation.

12. This fact is not disputed that the claimant has not placed on record any bill or receipt to establish the treatment charges but at the same time, this fact is not disputed that she remained hospitalized for two days. She has suffered the fracture, so she must have obtained the treatment for the injuries suffered by her. So, in my opinion she will be entit