FAO No.6006 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6006 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 12.05.2011 Ranbir Singh son of Shri Sube Singh, caste Jat aged 36 years, resident of village Sanghi, Tehsil and District Rohtak ......Appellant Versus Balwant Singh son of Shri Ram Karan and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. 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) C.M. No.11956-CII of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. Application is allowed. C.M. No.11957-CII of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 10.03.2011 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Application is allowed. FAO No.6003 of 2010 1. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for FAO No.6006 of 2010 (O&M) -2- injury suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation providing for all the heads and particularly taking the 30% disability resulting in 30% loss of earning capacity. The doctor's evidence was that there had been a mal-united fracture left radius lower third region resulting in mild stiffness of the right knee, ankle and left wrist. The Tribunal had provided for medical expenses at Rs.2,55,000/- and had also granted Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges against a claim of Rs.46,000/-. The Tribunal had provided for Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for transportation charges and Rs.8,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal assessed the loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,62,000/-, which I believe, is not justified, for, it is not clearly brought through any evidence that this disability had impacted his earning skills. This must have been taken as merely providing for loss of amenities of life. If the Tribunal had provided for the same taking the entire disability as constituting loss of earning capacity, the assessment made on the basis that his salary was Rs.3,000/-, it cannot still be said to be less than what the case deserved. 3. The assessment of an overall compensation made at Rs.5,00,000/- is more than appropriate and just and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same for enhancement. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Pankaj*