IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.685 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: January 17, 2011 SONA DEVI @ SOMA DEVI ...APPELLANT VERSUS HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. YOGESH SAINI, ADVOCATE FOR MR. BHOOP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR the APPELLANT. MR. KUNAL GARG, AAG, HARYANA. MR. R.M. SURI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in the legs of the claimant where she had fracture of both legs. Bone fracture was corrected by plaster of paris and yet another fracture of the left leg was reduced by implant and nailing. The claimant stated that she had incurred expenditure of about `15,000/- for hospital and medicines and she was confined to the hospital for about 30 days. 2. She had provided medical evidence through Doctor, who stated that with reference to one leg the claimant had full range of movements, but with reference to the other leg, there has been restriction of movements to an extent of 19% and that was not likely to decrease over the passage of time. The medical bills which has been produced before me were Ex.P1 to P-72 and she claimed that all the bills are not retained by her. The Tribunal took that into consideration and provided `5000/- towards that head which I retain. As regards pain and suffering, the Tribunal had awarded `10,000/- which, in my view, is modest. Considering the fact that she had two fractures in both her legs and she had been hospitalized for about a month and she had also undergone surgery, I would provide for an additional amount of `10,000/- for pain and suffering for the month long hospitalization. As regards the disability, the Tribunal had provided for `15,000/- for 19% disability that she had suffered. She was 30 years of age and she had four children to take care of. According to learned counsel for the appellant the restriction of range of movements which was permanent ought to have been compensated more. She was a housewife and to that extent to which her own liability is restricted, I would take a compensation of `25,000/- towards disability would be appropriate which means an addition by another `10,000/- over what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The over-all increase shall be 20,000/- over what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of increase shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The amount of increase shall be borne by the insurance company as determined by the Tribunal already. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. January 17, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE