IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.39-CII or 1992 in/and FAO No.805 of 1989(O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2011 Rupinder Singh alias Raju ....Appellant versus Krishan and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Cross objector. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No2. None for respondents 3 and 4. Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---- 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. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The evidence was that he had been hospitalized for three days. He was a Supervisor with a private contractor, earning Rs.1,000/- per month. The Tribunal, while assessing compensation, awarded Rs.4,000/- for medicines and Rs.6,000/- for pain and suffering. The overall compensation was Rs.10,000/-. Cross Objection No.39-CII or 1992 in/and FAO No.805 of 1989(O&M) - 2 - 2. The learned counsel states that the loss of income had not been given and the extent for transportation was also not given. Both these are pecuniary heads of compensation for which specific evidence is necessary. I would not make a conjecture on an aspect of the case where there is no evidence available. The overall compensation of Rs.10,000/- must be taken as going to satisfy the claim relating to loss of income as well as the transportation also. I will see no reason to make modification of the award. The appeal is dismissed. 3. There is cross objection also by the driver stating that the award had been wrongly made against him and the Insurance Company was exonerated. If the driver had been aggrieved about the decision, there must have been an independent appeal, for, in a case where the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal, the cross objection could be only on objection relating to the claim made by the appellant. He cannot seek for adjudication with the co-respondent in the absence of appeal. The cross objection is also dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 16.02.2011 sanjeev