FAO No.3531 of 2009 1 FAO No.3532 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No.3531 of 2009 Date of decision January 31 , 2011 Narain Dass ....... Appellant Versus Prem Chand and others ........Respondents FAO No.3532 of 2009 Siri Ram ....... Appellant Versus Prem Chand and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate with Mr. K. K. Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeals are for enhancement of claim of compensation and injuries suffered in an accident. In FAO No. 3531 of 2009 the claimant had fracture at the wrist and he had been hospitalized from 5.12.2001 to 24.12.2001. As regards evidence, a medical board had certified his disability to be permanent and assessed at 6%. The claimant gave evidence to the effect that MRI had been taken at the hospital at Delhi FAO No.3531 of 2009 2 FAO No.3532 of 2009 and it cost about 3500/-. Beyond this there was no other proof of medical expenses. While assessing the compensation at 40,000/- the Tribunal awarded 25,000/- for medical expenses and for inconvenience caused by disability and awarded 15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Learned counsel states that compensation for disability and for medical expenses, higher amounts must have been provided for. I find no basis for a claim that a fracture of the wrist should merit consideration for higher compensation than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. I reject the plea and FAO No.3135 of 2009 is dismissed. 2. As regards the claim for injury suffered to the claimant that resulted in fracture of both bones of the leg and fracture of the right foot resulting in hospitalization from 5.12.2001 to 24.12.2001. The Tribunal had assessed compensation at 50,000/- that included 15,000/- for pain and suffering and 35,000/- for hospital expenses and the disability caused. Learned counsel states that for disability and hospitalization a higher compensation must have been provided and for 12% disability 24,000/- may be considered for claimant. I find that the approach of granting compensation at the rate of 2,000/- for percentage is not scientific assessment in any way and if such a contention were to be accepted, I find that the Tribunal had assessed 35,000/- even in the absence of proof of medical expenses. The amount provided for was just. The over all compensation of 50,000/- for a man who had suffered a fracture in his foot and leg would seem to be appropriate and just and would not justify for intervention for enhancement. The appeal is dismissed. 3. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 31, 2011 archana