FAO No.481 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.481 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: April 20, 2011 PAWAN KUMAR ...APPELLANT VERSUS NARINDER SINGH & 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. ANUPAM SINGLA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The appellant was a Teacher and he had suffered fractures of right leg, right ankle, right patella, right fracture femur, fracture of left ankle, fracture of left forearm. He had been hospitalized from 6.10.2008 and underwent operations on 7.10.2008 and 10.10.2008. The fractures were reduced by K.nailing and wiring. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for the entire bills that adduced proof of the medical expenses and the Court also provided for compensation for loss of earning during hospitalization at `20,000/-, `20,000/- as attendant charges, `20,000/- as special diet, `10,000/- as conveyance charges and `30,000/- for pain & suffering during the temporary disability caused for three months. 2. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal has not appropriately provided for loss of earning for a Teacher who was earning `10,000/-. It is FAO No.481 of 2011 -2- not clearly brought on record as to whether he had suffered loss of salary during the period of his hospitalization. With no such proof being available, the Tribunal's assessment at `20,000/- for loss of earning in my view is appropriate and just. Learned counsel also states that the amount of compensation for `30,000/- for the disability, which is a component of pain & suffering and the inconvenience, was grossly low. He had 6 fractures and hospitalization and the assessment is only modest and it could have been a little more. But, in my view it is a compensated by the fact that the Tribunal has awarded fairly a sufficient sum of compensation for attendant charges, special diet. The assessment of general damages for pain & suffering is invariably in the realm of some conjecture and I would provide for some latitude of discretion for a Tribunal to adopt. I will not find this inadequacy of compensation for a disability that did not impair his earning skills as the only ground for which the appeal could be admitted for reappraisal for assessment of compensation. 3. The over-all compensation determined by the Tribunal accords with the evidence that was adduced before the Tribunal and I see no reason for any interference. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. April 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE