FAO No.376 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.376 of 1988 Date of Decision. 07.01.2011 Jagdish Kumar minor son of Shri Ram Gopal ......Appellant Versus Krishan Lal son of Chhaju and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered in an accident by the claimant. He was aged 11 years and he had injuries in his leg for which he was under treatment in Safdarjang Hospital on 30.05.1986 to 26.7.1986. The claimant had produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and over and above the medical bills, the Court awarded Rs.15,000/- and granted Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Any appraisal for enhancement will be possible if there is any one particular head which is not properly addressed. The evidence was that the claimant had some difficulty in movement of his left leg but the doctor, who was examined in Court, was not prepared to say that it caused any permanent disability and that it could be FAO No.376 of 1988 -2- taken as only temporary inconvenience. The only head of claim that would have been possible, would be transportation charges and pain and suffering. For non-pecuniary heads of claim for injuries suffered, which required hospitalization and surgery, I would provide for Rs.15,000/- which incidentally is the amount that the Tribunal has added over the medical expenses. If there had been evidence with reference to attendant charges and transportation, it would be possible to grant such a head of claim but I will be reluctant to make conjectures where compensation has to be awarded for pecuniary heads. There ought to be evidence placed on record for a Court to make appropriate inference. If such evidence is not placed, it shall not be possible for me to project my own estimation of what could have been incurred. There could be hard cases where document is not available. I would accept at least oral evidence to support the plea for pecuniary heads of claim. If there is no such evidence available, I am afraid I cannot accommodate a plea for enhancement. 2. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 07, 2011 Pankaj*