FAO No. 1307 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1307 of 1989 Decided on : 09-12-2008 Master Amit ....Appellant VERSUS Baljeet Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Insurance Company MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar dated 29.8.1989. The appellant was 14 years of age when he met with an accident on 14.12.1988. He suffered injuries which have been detailed in the testimony of PW 5 Dr. M.R.Sapra, which is reproduced as under:- “Patient Amit aged 14 years son of Kuldeep Singh present in the Court today, was admitted in my hospital on 14.12.1988 with fracture of left femur caused by a vehicular accident. He was operated upon and was discharged on 9.1.1989. A sum of Rs. 8,952/- were charged as total amount by way of investigation, room rent, enthesia and operation fee vide receipt Ex. P.6/A, Exs. P.7 to P.29 are the bills of the drug store. The child was left behind a temporary disability which would have recovered in a period of one to two years but for the 2nd fracture he sustained about 2 ½ months back which has delayed his recovery by another two years. The nail fitted will have FAO No. 1307 of 1989 2 to be removed after some years when all disability has dis-appeared by operation, which will involve expenditure.” as a result of the treatment of the aforesaid injuries he had to be operated and steel rod has to be inserted. He remained hospitalised from 24.12.88 to 9.1.1989. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the following heads:- 1. Medical Treatment Rs.4,000/- 2. Special Diet Rs.1,000/- 3. Transportation Rs.1,000/- 4. Doctor's fee Rs.9,000/- I am afraid the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. Rs.4,000/- for the medical expenses, Rs.1,000/- each for special diet for transportation and Rs.9,000/- for doctor's fee do not warrant any interference. However, the Tribunal failed to take into account the amount which has been awarded for pain and suffering. The appellant had suffered fracture for which he had to be operated and steel rod has to be inserted. Nothing has been awarded under this head. Therefore, another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the appellant for pain and suffering. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. December 9 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge