FAO No.397 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.397 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 19.04.2011 Dharambir son of Shri Ram Dutt (aged 36 years) resident of village Kanwari, Tehsil Hansi, Distt. Hisar. ......Appellant Versus Mukhtiar Singh son of Shri Hawa Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. 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. Delay is condoned. 2. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation by the claimant, who had suffered some injuries that were certified to have resulted in 8% permanent disability. He had a fracture of the lower limb and some multiple injuries all over the parts of body. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.7,000/- for medical expenses on the basis of bills filed and proved, Rs.16,000/- for disability, Rs.2,000/- for transportation and Rs.9,000/- for loss of income, Rs.4500/- for attendant charges and Rs.3600/- for nutrition and diet. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the loss of income assessed at Rs.9000/- for three months of loss was grossly low. FAO No.397 of 2011 (O&M) -2- He was an agriculturist and there was no definite documentary evidence about the nature of income. The Tribunal had assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/- per month and provided for Rs.9000/- for three month's loss of earning. I cannot fault the procedure adopted. The learned counsel states that pain and suffering has been assessed at merely Rs.15,000/- for the trauma of injury that a person had for hospitalization from 03.05.2007 to 06.05.2007. The provision for pain and suffering at Rs.15,000/- for three days of hospitalization itself is not low and I do not find a scope for enhancement. The provision for Rs.16,000/- for permanent disability must be understood as loss of amenities of life and it has not been brought through any medical evidence that the injuries impacted in any way his earning capacity. 4. I do not find any scope for interference under any of the heads. The award passed by the Tribunal is, therefore, appropriate and just. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 19, 2011 Pankaj*