FAO No.1358 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. FAO No.1358 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2011 SUBHASH CHANDER ...APPELLANT VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS 2. FAO No.1359 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2011 DARSHAN LAL ...APPELLANT VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. ROHIT VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. MUNISHWAR PURI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA. MR. R.N. SINGHAL, ADVOCATE AND MR. VIVEK SINGHAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered in the accident by claimant Subhash Chander resulting in compound fracture of both bones of his right leg. He was treated at Military FAO No.1358 of 1991 -2- Hospital at Hisar and later treated at the Medical College, Rohtak. The claimant had stated that he had already spent `10,000/- at the time when the case was filed. He further contended that on account of the injury there had been a shortening of limb by half an inch. The claimant had filed medical bills Ex.P-14 to P-39. He was said to be earning `1000/- and he remained in crutches for two months and remained without job for eight months. Initially, the disability was assessed at 10%, but during the pendency of the appeal another certificate was produced to show that disability was 30%. 2. The assessment of compensation at the appellate Court cannot be determined on documents produced for the first time in appeal making a better assessment of disability unless there is evidence also to the effect that there had been an aggravation of injury during the course of time and the disability assessed had not remained static and had worsened over period of time. I have not the benefit of such information that there had been any aggravation of injury and there had been increase in disability over a period of time. An over all compensation determined by the Tribunal at `30,000/- in the circumstances, I would hold, was appropriate and would require no interference. 3. As regards the claim of compensation which is the subject matter in FAO No.1359 of 1991, the claimant was one Darshan Lal who was said to have suffered fracture of the hip bone. Dr.M.L.Kochhar had been examined as PW1 who certified that he had suffered a disability of 10%. I have not the benefit to know from the judgement as to what his employment was and how this disability had impacted his earning skills. The Tribunal had provided for a compensation of `60,000/- in a case even without discussing several heads of claim. Though the mode of assessment FAO No.1358 of 1991 -3- determined a lump-sum compensation without adverting to each one of the heads of claim is improper, I cannot make a favourable intervention for the appellant for any enhancement with absolutely no details available as to how each one of the heads of claim would require reappraisal and no evidence available for better result. 4. The appeals are frivolous and are dismissed as such. January 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE