FAO No. 5122 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5122 of 2010 Date of decision January 3, 2011 Mintu @ Santosh ....... Appellant Versus Sh.Harmesh Singha and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vikram Bali, 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 claimant has filed an appeal for the injury suffered in an accident. The contention by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has not provided for transport expenses when there was an evidence that he was transported from one hospital to another. I cannot subject this award for a reappraisal only for this reason when there was no evidence given as to the actual amount which he has spent. Some conjecture may be possible in non-pecuniary damages but I cannot allow for vague claims unless a specific evidence is given under the head of pecuniary damages. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation, in my view, rather liberal. The compensation has been assessed under the following heads:- i) Disability Rs.50,000/- ii) Medical/transportation expenses etc. Rs.25,630/- FAO No. 5122 of 2010 2 iii)Special Diet Rs. 6,000/- iv)loss of earning Rs. 7,000/- v) Non-pecuniary damages Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.2,88,630/- 2. There is no scope for enhancement of the claim and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 3, 2011 archana