IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 1144 of 1988 Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 Raj Kumar Garg. ....... Appellant through Shri S.K.Rana, Advocate. Versus The State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri O.P.Sharma, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana. Respondent no.3 through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is an appeal against award dated 3.10.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for shot, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No. 10 of 1988. The appellant was injured in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 3.7.1987. He filed a claim petition for grant of compensation. The Tribunal granted him Rs.51600/- vide the impugned award along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 28.1.1988, till realisation. Feeling dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation, the F.A.O.No.1144 of 1988 -2- ... appellant has come up in appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. PW4-Dr.Maharaj Kumar Goel, Registrar of Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, who had attended upon the appellant, testified that the appellant had suffered injuries which he had described as “a lacerated wound left upper arm, shoulder front of left side of chest, right shoulder and face. This witness further testified that the x-rays of the appellant showed fracture of 2nd to 6th ribs on the left side and fracture of corticoid process, comminuted fracture neck specula left side and doubtful fracture of nasal bone. He further went on to state that the appellant had suffered 50% disability and the same had been caused because ulna nerve had been damaged permanently and that with it, the appellant could not hold any article in his left with full grip. He also stated that the appellant's upper lip had been cut which again was a permanent disfigurement. It has also come in the testimony of PW4 that an amount of Rs.21546/- was spent by the appellant on his treatment. This amount was accepted by the Tribunal and the same was rounded off to Rs.21600/-. The above mentioned evidence has remained unrebutted and therefore, applying the principle of Rs.2000/- per percentage of the disability, the appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of 50% disability having been suffered by him. The amount on account of medical treatment, i.e., Rs.21600/-, which has been awarded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, does not warrant F.A.O.No.1144 of 1988 -3- ... any interference. However, for pain and suffering, the appellant is granted a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In this way, a total sum of Rs.1,46,600/- is awarded to the appellant as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. The enhanced compensation shall be payable along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The liability to pay the enhanced compensation and interest shall be the same as has been determined by the Tribunal. The impugned award is modified to the above extent and the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms. December 05,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge