FAO No. 6348 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 6348 of 2010 Date of decision May 13, 2011 Vijay Kumar Yadav ....... Appellant Versus Kiran Kumar and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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?No K. Kannan, J (oral). CM No.27896-CII of 2010 1. There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.6348 of 2010 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for assessment made by the Tribunal at `1,30,000/-. He had a fracture in his leg and the doctor who had treated him was examined to say that it was reduced but he still carried a disability of 15%. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for all the medical expenses which were shown to have been incurred namely `66,053/- and FAO No. 6348 of 2010 2 granted `10,000/- for pain and suffering, `5,000/- for transportation, `5,000/- for special diet and `14,000/- for loss of work and `30,000/- for disability caused. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that on account of injury he had lost his promotional prospects, being a member of disciplined uniformed services. A fracture which is reduced to cause an impairment of earning skills must be a matter of definite evidence placed by the appellant and with appropriate corroboration from the doctor. It cannot be merely a matter of inference that every disability would impact the earning skills or reduce the promotional prospects. The Tribunal was awarding `30,000/- for disability, I would understand the same to be a general damage provided for loss of amenities arising on account of the injuries. Learned counsel also states that he was earning `20,000/- but the Tribunal had provided only `14,000/- for loss of work. All this again must be a matter of evidence that there was a loss of pay during the period of his treatment and convalescence. With no materials or basis to say that he had suffered any actual loss of income, the provision of `14,000/- as made by the Tribunal itself must be taken as sufficient. I find no cause for interference in appeal for enhancement. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 13 , 2011 archana