JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J. (Oral):- C.M. No.4858-CII of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 22.01.2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Application is allowed. FAO No.322 of 1988 1. I directed the State Counsel to take notice and also had a copy of the judgment supplied. Since the appeal is of the year 1988 and the accident had taken place in the year 1986, I have proceeded to take up the case for disposal with the consent of both counsel. 2. The claimant was a driver of Punjab Roadways who while driving the vehicle dashed against another vehicle belonging to the Haryana Raodways coming from the opposite direction. The contention of the claimant was that it was the driver of the Haryana Raodways bus who was responsible for the accident, in that he had come to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the vehicle he was driving. The driver of the Haryana Roadways was also examined as RW2 who gave evidence to the effect that he had actually turned to the left side to another road and that was when the claimant dashed against him. The Tribunal rejected both these contentions and held that the rough plan produced before the Tribunal showed that the collision had been at the middle of the road. It found the larger slice of liability for the claimant and apportioned the same as 80:20 between him and the driver of the Haryana Roadways. If the contention of driver of the Haryana Roadways was rejected by the Tribunal that the Haryana Roadways bus had actually taken a left turn when the collision had taken place then it must only be taken that a head on collision at the middle of the road as a result of contributory negligence of the claimant which could be apportioned at no more than 50%. I will, therefore, modify the assessment made by the Tribunal already as above. 3. The claimant was said to have been hospitalized for a period of 6 days and later taking treatment for six months. He had, however, reported on duty after three months. I will, therefore, modify the assessment made by the Tribunal already as above. 3. The claimant was said to have been hospitalized for a period of 6 days and later taking treatment for six months. He had, however, reported on duty after three months. He was a driver and if there was evidence that he had reported to duty after three months, I will take that he had resumed duty as a driver after three months and his disability lasted till that time. However, the doctor who had examined him gave evidence to the effect that there had been a shortening of limb by two inches and he had a 50% disability. I will rework the compensation to provide for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities that is caused to him for the rest of his life by shortening of the limb. I will rework the compensation and assess the total amount through the table as under:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ INJURY CASES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Age 48 years Period of Hospitalization 6 days Occupation Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sl. No. Amount (Rs) Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of income 6000 6000 2 Medical expenses (i) Medicines 5000 (ii) Hospital Charges (iii) Attendant Charges 2000 (iv) Special Diet 2000 (v) Transportation 3 Pain & Suffering- 7500 10,000 4 Disability 50% 50% 5 Loss of earning capacity income Multiplier % of loss of earning capacity 6. Loss of amenities 50,000 7 Reduction in life expectancy 8 Loss of prospect of marriage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total 70,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. The total amount determined is Rs. 70,000/- and making 50% abatement for the percentage of contributory negligence attributed to him, the amount payable will be Rs. 35000/- with interest @7.5% to the extent to which it is an addition to the amount which has already been granted by the Tribunal. 5. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. The liability shall be on the Haryana Roadways to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------