FAO No.945 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.945 of 1993 Date of Decision. 09.02.2011 Smt. Usha Devi alias Usha rani and another ......Appellants Versus Tara Chand son of Sh. Mehar Chand and others .....Respondents 2. FAO No.1007 of 1993 Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Amar Nath ......Appellant Versus Tara Chand son of Sh. Mehar Chand and others .....Respondents Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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. Both the appeals are connected and address the same issue. There is no representation for the appellant and I proceeded to examine the case with the assistance of the counsel appearing for the respondents and with the records. 2. In FAO No.945 of 1993, the claimant had sought for compensation for injuries suffered in the accident that resulted in extraction of three teeth which had been affected in the accident. FAO No.945 of 1993 -2- There had been also facial deformity of the left side which was corrected by treatment. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/-. The accident had taken place on 23.09.1988 and I am of the view that a provision for Rs.20,000/- for loss of three teeth is appropriate and just and it would require no intervention. 3. As regards the subject matter of claim in FAO No.1007 of 1993, the injuries said to have been suffered were on the leg, right eye and left arm. There had been no MLR filed on record and no record of injuries had, therefore, been brought through any document except when they were stated so by the claimant himself. 4. The award of Rs.2,000/- had been passed on the basis of some medical bills which had been filed but details of the same are not in the records. I do not find that there is any error in the approach of the Tribunal and the compensation awarded has been on the basis of what was brought before the Tribunal. 5. There is no scope to interfere with any one of the awards. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 09, 2011 Pankaj*