FAO No.6950 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6950 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 02.05.2011 Tarawati widow and others ......Appellants Versus Ravi Dutt Sharma son of Sh. Krishan Sharma and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. 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. Delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for injury suffered in a motor accident. The injuries were fracture of both limbs on his right arm and loss of his nail. He was immediately treated and bills brought through Tribunal showed that he has spent Rs.20,000/-. The contention was that he had taken treatment subsequently for kidney ailment and incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs.3,55,000/-. The claimant had subsequently died but the compensation was awarded only for the injury suffered in the accident on finding that there was nothing to establish that the fracture in his arm had aggravated in any way his condition relating to his kidney ailment. I cannot also find any nexus between a fracture incurred to a kidney ailment that he had suffered, when he filed the petition. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in assessing compensation only for injuries sustained by the claimant. FAO No.6950 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 3. While determining the compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses, which was more than Rs.10,000/- of what was covered by the bills. To assess the compensation for loss of income for 3-4 months, the Tribunal has provided Rs.25,000/- for loss of income. This estimation is also, in my view, appropriate. The claimant had contended that he had hired vehicle to go hospital for his treatment and he spent about Rs.20,000/- but in the absence of any specific bills showing the expenses, the Tribunal provided for transport expenses at Rs.8,000/-, which, in my view is correct. The Tribunal has also provided for Rs.12,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal has provided Rs.24,000/- for pain and suffering and the total compensation of Rs.1 lac was granted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants states that no compensation had been awarded for attendant charges. Though the said claim ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, I do not find that there is any mistake in the overall assessment of compensation, for the Tribunal has provided for compensation for pain and suffering to the legal representatives of the deceased. The compensation had been claimed for injuries but subsequent the death had taken place. In a case of assessment for injury, it will be possible to factor a head of claim for pain and suffering if only the claimant is alive to make the claim. If he had died, the right to claim compensation for pain and suffering for personal injury cannot go to the legal representatives under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. The assessment made for such head of claim is not legally tenable. However, I will not interfere with the same because the owner, driver and the insurance company are not in appeal FAO No.6950 of 2010 (O&M) -3- before me. The provisions which are already made, therefore, are not required to be interfered. 5. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Pankaj*