FAO No.6113 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6113 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 06.04.2011 Subhash son of Jugti Ram, resident of House No.1136/05, Ward No.11 Kabir/Peer Colony, Near Masjid, Jind Road, Rohtak ......Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar son of Mohinder and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Devinder Singh, 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) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in accident. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation took note of the evidence given by the doctor to the effect that he had swelling in pubic area and there was a fracture of the pelvis. A surgery was done and he had been put on traction. For medical expenses, the bills were produced to the tune of Rs.78,802/- and the Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for medical expenses. It also provided for Rs.15,000/- for transportation, Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges, Rs.15,000/- for extra diet and Rs.60,000/- for loss of income. The Tribunal had also awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. 2. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal had not properly made provision for future medical expenses and he reads the evidence FAO No.6113 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of claimant given himself to the effect that he would require a further operation. A doctor examined in the Court is the most competent person to speak about whether a further surgery is needed and what are the likely expenses for the same. It cannot be claimant's own assessment what he might a surgery require in future. He was a mason and it is stated that he is unable to do any work. The Tribunal has observed that he could earn about Rs.3600/- per month and it provided for Rs.60,000/- for loss of work. It has elsewhere in the same award provided for Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is in some way a general damage for which only conventional sums are awarded during the period of treatment. The provision for Rs.1,50,000/- is definitely on the higher side but I would take this to be more than offsetting the relatively deficient assessment made for loss of income for the alleged disability suffered by him. The overall compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- is, in my view, appropriate and just and I see no reason to interfere with the same. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 06, 2011 Pankaj*