FAO No. 816 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 816 of 2011 Date of decision May 3, 2011 Smt. Santro ....... Appellant Versus Nasru and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 claim for compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. Claimant had been provided `58,000/- that is included `20,000/- for pain and suffering, `3,000/- for medical expenses incurred which were established through bills. The Tribunal also awarded `3,000/- for transportation, `3,000/- for attendant charges and `2,000/- for special diet. The injury had been spoken to by the Doctor S. P. Singh, PW-3 who had stated that he had fracture of the right tibia fibula with punctured wound and open fracture medial mellelous with lacerated wound and abrasions. She had been operated on a leg and discharged with follow ups. For the two fractures and medical corrections the Tribunal awarded `20,000/- for pain and suffering. There does not appear to be any disability arising on account of FAO No. 816 of 2011 2 the injuries. 2. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation for pain and suffering and for the attendant charges and special diet. Pain and suffering is a subjective component and if the Tribunal had awarded `20,000/- for two fractures and surgical correction, I will not find it to be inadequate for intervention in appeal. Special diet and transportation charges are also been provided nominally and unless there are any specific details or evidence produced for making a higher assumption, I will not find any reason for interference. Learned counsel argues that interest is awarded only at 6%. The case was instituted on 1.9.2009 and the case was disposed of on 9.10.2010 for about a year's time. Having regard to the fact that the case was disposed of within a reasonable time, the provision for interest at 6% also is not an issue for reappraisal in the appeal. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 3, 2011 archana