FAO No.661 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.661 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: February 28, 2011 OM BISHNU ...APPELLANT VERSUS HANS RAJ AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. NEERAJ KHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for the injury sustained in a motor accident. There is no representation on behalf of the claimant-appellant and I proceed to examine the case with the assistance of counsel appearing for the insurer. The evidence was that on account of the accident his right leg had fractured and he had been taken first to Rajindra Hospital at Mandi Adampur and later shifted to Arora Hospital at Hisar. He claimed that he had undergone surgery and spent about `60,000/- for treatment at the hospital. 2. The evidence brought on record showed that he was admitted in the hospital on 16.9.1994 and his fracture of the right leg was operated upon surgically. The internal fixation of bone grafting had been done. He was discharged on 13.10.1994, which meant that he remained in hospital for 21 days. He was readmitted in the hospital and the internal implants had been FAO No.661 of 1998 -2- removed by a subsequent surgery that was brought through records after his second admission on 5.8.1995 and discharged on 10.8.1995. 3. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal made reference to all the medical bills and provided for `22,850/- for cost of medicines. It awarded `12,000/- for pain & suffering and for a 25% disability assessed by the Doctor on account of mal-union of the bones and restriction of movement at the right ankle, the Tribunal assessed `16,000/- as compensation. It found that the fracture had not resulted in loss of earning capacity and found that there was no reason to adopt a multiplier theory and the over-all compensation was `50,850/-. I do not find any reason to enhance the claim for compensation. 4. The appeal is dismissed on merits. February 28, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE