IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.688 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision:17.12.2010 Telu Ram (deceased) through his LRs. ....Appellants versus Surinder Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 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 a person, aged 60 years, and is said to have been involved in the business of milk dairy. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, had provided for Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.5,000/- for special diet; Rs.60,000/- for medical expenses; Rs.40,000/- for disability caused; Rs.5,000/- for transport and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. I propose to make an intervention only in so far as the award does not make adequate provision for pain and suffering and no provision for attendant charges in a case where the claimant had recurrent period of hospitalization that is from 02.04.2000 to 04.06.2000, from 28.09.2000 FAO No.688 of 2002 (O&M) - 2 - to 02.10.2000 and from 19.12.2000 to 24.12.2000 that is about three months of hospitalization and I would provide @ Rs.2,000/- for 3 months Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges. I have attempted to homogenize the approach for determination of compensation as regards the component of pain and suffering in the judgment in FAO No.422 of 1993, decided on 12.11.2010 titled 'Madan Lal Papneja Versus State of Haryana and others' and I would apply the same to hold that for two fractures which he had suffered in his right and left leg and for multiple fractures of the ribs, I would provide for Rs.25,000/- as going towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel argues that there ought to have been a higher claim possible for special diet and for transportation. In the absence of any specific evidence, I will take what the Tribunal has taken as adequate and proper. The claimant has remained under treatment for fairly long period nearly 8 months and he had no evidence to the effect that he was doing business in milk dairy. The Tribunal had already awarded Rs.20,000/- and I will make a provision for another Rs.10,000/- to take the loss to Rs.30,000/- against Rs.20,000/-. In all, there shall be an additional amount of Rs.36,000/- as compensation. The liability shall be on the Insurance Company as determined by the Tribunal already. The increase in compensation shall also attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 2. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.12.2010 sanjeev