FAO No.1266 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1266 of 2007 Date of Decision.16.09.2011 Baljit Singh son of Chhajju Ram, caste Balmiki, r/o village Khanda Kheri, Tehsil and District Jind .....Appellant Versus Suresh Kumar son of Hawa Singh r/o village Alewa, Tehsil and District Jind, driver of Tractor No.HR-31/5254 and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 a person, who is said to have suffered two fractures in his leg. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the appellant gave evidence through Doctor Kochar as PW-1, who spoke to the fact that he had 15% disability. He remained in hospital for 1 ½ months. On the basis of documentary evidence given in proof of medical expenses, the assessment of disability as well as the oral evidence spoken to by the doctor and the appellant himself about the nature of disability that he has suffered, the Tribunal assessed the compensation as under:- 1. On account of permanent disability of 15% Rs.30,000 2. On account of expenses of medicines as per mark 1 Rs.10,000 to P-43 3. On account of pains, agonies, special diet, and Rs.25,000 transportation etc. FAO No.1266 of 2007 -2- 4. On account of damage of cycle loss of income Rs.15,000 during admission in the hospital, bed rest and loss of future enjoyment in life. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal has not properly assessed compensation for future loss and the Tribunal has also not properly assessed the litigation expenses. I do not have the benefit of evidence of Doctor himself and if I notice that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- for 15% disability, it was keeping with a particular line of approach taken by this Court till recently when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has redefined claims relating to assessment of compensation for personal injuries in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343 3. The assessment of compensation for pain and suffering for a surgical reduction of fracture and for hospitalization as Rs.25,000/-, in my view, is appropriate and even the assessment of Rs.15,000/- for future enjoyment of life as assessed by the Tribunal along with the damage to cycle and for bed rest seems proper. The overall assessment of compensation at Rs.80,000/-, in my view, is just compensation and it would not require to be revised. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no litigation expenses have been granted, cannot be taken very seriously, for the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest from the date of petition till the award and a review in appeal cannot be undertaken only for costs. 5. I do not find any scope for interference. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 16, 2011 Pankaj* FAO No.1266 of 2007 -3-