FAO No.461 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.461 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 25.05.2011 Wasim alias Wasim Akram son of Nashruddin, aged 23 years, resident of village Guraksar, Tehsil Hathin, District Mewat. ......Appellant Versus Ashu son of Sodhan and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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) C.M. No.13575-CII of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, order passed by this Court on 20.05.2011 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. Application is allowed. FAO No.461 of 2011 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation determined at Rs.1,10,500/-. The claimant was a Mason and it was stated that he had a fracture of the leg that required surgical correction. The doctor, who had examined him and issued a certificate of disability stated that he had moderate painful restriction of movement of the right knee, restriction of movement coupled with FAO No.461 of 2011 (O&M) -2- quadric apt weakness (sic) and deformity of the right ankle joint. There was a shortening of limb, which was said to be resulted in 30% disability. 2. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, provided for Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.35,000/- for medical expenses proved through bills. The Tribunal assessed Rs.50,000/- for the disability, which I would understand as going towards loss of amenities of life for a person, who has to carry a shortening of limb by an inch throughout his life. There was particularly no disability that had been elicited to show the possibility to cause any impact on his earning skills as a Mason. The Tribunal also provided for other expenses like special diet, transportation and attendant charges at Rs.1000/-, 1500/- and Rs.2500/- respectively. It also provided for Rs.500/- towards miscellaneous expenses. All the heads of claim have been properly addressed and I do not find that there is any scope for interference. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Pankaj*