IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1268 of 2010 Date of Decision. 11.01.2011 Deep Chand son of Shri Ram Dhari, resident of village Patkheli, District Ajamgarh (UP) now, resident of Shankar Garden, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar ......Appellant Versus Ram Kishan son of Om Parkash, resident of village Kila Jafargarh Tehsil Julana District Jind and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the insurance company. None for other 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 injury suffered in an accident where the claimant, who was a driver, had suffered a 20% disability. There was a shortening of limb by one inch and the evidence was that he had been admitted for 12 days. The Tribunal had awarded the medical bills, which had been produced before the Court to the tune of Rs.30,487/-, took the loss of income already suffered at Rs.2200/-, special diet Rs.2000/- and determined the loss of earning capacity as Rs.63,360/- assuming the 20% disability for the whole body to mean 10% loss of earning capacity. The total compensation arrived at, therefore, was Rs.1,03,047/-. 2. Learned counsel would urge that there was no provision made for attendant charges and even the compensation of pain and suffering awarded merely at Rs.5,000/- was grossly low. I would normally be inclined to raise the component of non-pecuniary damage for pain and suffering by another Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- but in this case, the Tribunal has been liberal in taking a functional loss to a leg to have resulted in a 10% loss of earning capacity and has provided for a compensation of Rs.63,360/-. That in my view more than compensates for any inadequate sum that has been awarded towards pain and suffering. Same way, attendant charge is invariably a pecuniary head of claim and if there was evidence and proof of the same, the lack of provision by the Tribunal would be seen as a ground of interference. I find no particular evidence to support such a claim. The overall compensation awarded be seem to just and there is no socpe for interference. 2. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 10, 2011 Pankaj*