FAO No. 123 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 123 of 1990 Date of decision January 17 , 2011 Ram Lal ....... Appellant Versus Smt. Tara Devi and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Aakash Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and 4 Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. D. P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered in an accident. The appellant is not able to produce the copies of documents which were said to have been filed before the Tribunal. I do not have also the benefit of the lower court records and I cannot detain the case after keeping the case pending for 21 years. I will therefore proceed to examine for what obtains from the judgment of the Tribunal below itself. The claimant is alleged to have suffered injuries on both arms and he has given evidence to the effect that he had been treated at the Civil hospital, Narnaul and Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, Radiologist has observed that he found fracture of shaft of left humerous and shaft of left ulna. PW-2 was yet another doctor at Narnaul who has stated that the FAO No. 123 of 1990 2 patient was discharged on his own request on 17.9.1987 within two days after the accident. His own evidence was that he had gone to Jaipur and he was taking treatment for three months as an inpatient. I do not have the details of hospitalization and nor are there documents available on my record to vouch for his prolonged treatment. The Tribunal has however, taken medical expenses brought through the expenses to have cost him at Rs.2,500/- and the Tribunal has awarded the same. 2. As regards the pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/- which in my view is very modest for two fractures, I would provide for Rs.10,000/- at Rs.5,000/- per fracture. He is also alleged to have undergone two surgeries and though the details are not available, I will provide for another Rs.5,000/- to pain and suffering. I will therefore provide Rs.15,000/- as damages for pain and suffering against Rs.1,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the permanent disability PW-7 Dr. S.P. Aggarwal has been examined who has said that there is dystrophy of muscles of left forearm and left hand with restriction of movement in left shoulder and elbow. He had assessed the disability at 20% and he has observed that he could have difficulty in performing his daily activities with limitation of his arm. I would provide for a loss of inconvenience caused to an extent of Rs.10,000/-. I will make no other assessment, for I am of the view that every head of claim has been properly dealt with. In the manner I had dealt with, it will mean an additional amount of Rs.24,000/- which shall be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be as determined by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE Jaunary 17, 2011 FAO No. 123 of 1990 3 archana