IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:20.04.2026 JOGINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for appellant.

Mr. R.N. Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.6-Insurance Company.

Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.9-Insurance Company.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred by injured-appellant-claimant who is dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 04.09.2004, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) vide which Rs.52,000/- was awarded on account of injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident dated 23.01.2002.

2. Learned Tribunal had awarded following compensation to the injured-appellant-claimant:

Medical Expenses Rs.42,000/- Special diet and attendant charges Rs.2,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs.8,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.52,000/-

3. Injured-appellant-claimant asserted to have suffered fracture on both his legs on account of the accident. As per the injured-appellant-

claimant, he was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib and then he got treatment from Dr. Rachhpal Singh Nursing home, Hoshiarpur. He claimed that due to the accident he remained admitted in the hospital from 24.01.2002 to 29.01.2002 and from 20.02.2002 to 22.02.2002. He also asserted that he became permanently disabled due to fracture on both the legs.

4. In the present case, learned counsel for injured-appellant- claimant has claimed compensation on account of 50% permanent disability, suffered by injured-Joginder singh on account accident. He has further challenged the award of compensation on the ground of non-grant of compensation under the head future prospects and future amenities of life. Injured/appellant/claimant also sought compensation for loss of income during period of treatment and enhancement under the head pain and sufferings. As far as permanent disability is concerned, the learned Tribunal has duly considered the factum of permanent disability in paragraph No.18 of the award, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“18. The main head of claim is damage suffered due tot he permanent disability. Claimant examined Dr. J.S. Dhami, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. AW-5, who issued Disability Certificate Ex.A-14 by examining the claimant on 235.2002. The doctor assessed permanent disability at 50% due to old case of fracture of neck femur left, with fracture. shaft femur right with 14” shortening of the left leg with left hip degenerated. This plea of the claimant must be discarded because the claimant has been unable to connect this dis-ability due to the accident in question. Claimant in the cross- examination admitted as AW-4 that even before he had received injury in an accident on his left leg. His left leg was shortened which was injured in the earlier accident but tried to explain that the shortening has occurred because of the present accident as rod fixed in his left leg got dislocated. He cannot be believed on this aspect because the complainant should have disclosed this fact in his claim petition itself. Moreover, Dr. J.S. Dhami AW-5 described the permanent disability only due to the shortening of the left leg by 1 ½ inches and there is no other cause given by him. He has mentioned that this was old case of fracture and in the cross-examination, he could not say the time when the fracture could have been caused. The Disability Certificate Ex.A-14 issued by the doctor also shows that there is 1 ½ inches shortening of the left leg and the left hip was degenrated. No such injury on the left leg and of the left hip joint was found by Dr. Rachhpal Singh AW-3, who immediately attended the claimant when the claimant was admitted in his hospital. The doctor has stated that the claimant was admitted