IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3886 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision:19.11.2010 Naresh ....Appellant versus Mohinder Singh alias Sonu and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Anil Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. ---- 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) CM No.27923-CII of 2010 1. Application for restoration of the appeal is allowed. FAO No.3886 of 2003 2. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs.95,694/- that included compensation for disability, medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of income, conveyance charges and special diet etc. 3. The contention is that the claimant was a teacher and she was on leave for 155 days without pay and another 51 days on earned leave. She was earning Rs.10,066/- and the loss of income ought to be FAO No.3886 of 2003 (O&M) - 2 - calculated for 206 days that is, close to 7 months. She was earning Rs.10,066/- per month but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income. I will accord to the claimant the entire amount for seven months loss and take the loss of income at Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/- as taken by the Tribunal. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,000/-. She had a fracture on her leg and operated twice. I will take the compensation for a fracture at Rs.7,500/- and for surgical intervention for every surgery at Rs.5,000/- and take the amount of compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.17,500/- instead of Rs.7,000/-. Towards medial bills apart from what has been awarded, there was evidence to the effect that a doctor had charged Rs.9,000/- for operation and he had not issued receipt therefor. I would take the doctor’s evidence to be credible and worthy of acceptance and I will provide for an additional amount of Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses. The learned counsel would also urge that he had been taking treatment in three different hospitals and he had spent considerably for transport and special diet. For pecuniary heads of claim, I cannot admit of any arbitrary sums if specific evidence was not brought forth before Court. 4. In the manner in which that I have provided for additional sums, it will mean that an amount of Rs.77,500/- is in excess over what has been already granted. 5. The appeal by the claimant shall stand enhanced by another sum of Rs.77,500/- and that shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. In terms of the judgment already rendered FAO No.3886 of 2003 (O&M) - 3 - in FAO No.4509 of 2003, the liability shall be initially on the Insurance Company and it will have a right of recovery against the insured. 6. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.11.2010 sanjeev