IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.388 of 2004. Date of decision: 29.9.2008. Vinay Rathore …..Appellant -Versus- Prakam Singh & Company and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.B.K. Malhotra, counsel for R-1. Mr.Sanjiv Sood, vice counsel for R-3. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded to him. The claimant while driving his motor cycle met with an accident with tempo bearing No.HP-53-947 on 9.6.1998 at about 7.15 a.m. Since the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to the factum of the accident and negligence are not under challenge before me, I proceed to decide the matter only with respect to the quantum. Unfortunately, the claimant has been quiet remiss in the manner in which he has led evidence before the learned Tribunal. PW-1 is Dr.S.M. Mehta who treated the claimant. According to him, the claimant was initially admitted in the Dr.Rajindra Prashad Medical College and Hospital at Tanda on 9.6.1998 and was diagnosed 2 for Grade-I compound fracture of both bones of the right forearm and compound fracture of proximal phalanx right little toe. The claimant was operated upon on 17.6.1998 and square nails were fixed in the bones of his forearm and K was fixed in his toe. According to the Doctor the patient had to come for follow up treatment as and when called upon and was checked by him on 30.11.1998. The claimant was again admitted in the hospital on 14.6.1999 when the nails were extracted and he was discharged after one month. The Doctor has produced the record Ext.PW-1/A to Ext.PW-1/D which is the record of treatment and discharge summary of the patient. The Doctor has also stated that he had suggested to the claimant that the claimant should undergo another surgery for fracture of Ulna which had not been united. As stated above, the claimant, for reasons best known to him, has not produced any record whatsoever with regard to his income and expenditure on the treatment. No evidence has been led in respect of the persons, if any, who were looking after him in Hospital. No mention has been made in respect of special diet if any. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the scanty evidence before it came to the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to any loss of earning or even for the loss of income during the period of hospitalization since no income had been proved. The learned tribunal has awarded the claimant a sum of Rs.7000/- for special diet and attendant for the first occasion and Rs.8000/- for special diet and attendant when he was re-admitted after one year. The claimant has been awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment in life. He has also been awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering for 3 the injury which has not healed and Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenditure i.e. in all Rs.60,000/-. Though strictly speaking, the method applied by the learned Tribunal may not be correct but when the compensation granted is considered globally it calls for no interference. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable keeping in view the nature of evidence recorded in the case. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. September 29, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge