FAO No.6796 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6796 of 2010 Date of decision:26.9.2011 Hardeep Singh ...Appellant(s) Versus Jagseer Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.M.S.Longia, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The main arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the learned Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation under the head hopitalisation and while asssessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal did not consider the aspect of loss of marriage prospects of the appellant. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that the alleged accident took place on 13.3.2008 in which the appellant sustained multiple injuries including head injury and fracture of Tibia. He remained admitted in PGIMS Chandigarh for a period of 21 days. The claimant produced on record medical bills Mark-A8 and Mark-A9 amounting to `53671/-. However, the learned Tribunal observed that the claimant produced the same bills again as Mark A-102 and Mark A-103. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of `6605/- under the head `hospital charges' by relying upon the bill Mark A-15 and A-16. Keeping in view the FAO No.6796 of 2010 2 injury of the appellant, the learned Tribunal awarded a consolidated sum of `50,000/- towards fee of doctor, medicines and hospital charges. There is no dispute that the claimant remained admitted in PGIMS, Chandigarh for a period of 21 days. The learned Tribunal rightly rejected the duplicate bills produced by the claimant. However, the learned Tribunal wrongly ignored the bills Mark-A8 and Mark-A9, which were of `53671/- and awarded a lump sum compensation of `5,000/- towards fee of doctor, medicines and hospital charges. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the said head is inadequate and the compensation is enhanced by a sum of `35,000/-. Accordingly, the same is awarded to the claimant, which would meet the ends of justice. As regards loss of marriage prospects, it is not disputed that the claimant was unmarried at the time of the accident. The claimant suffered disability, which is established from the statement of Dr.Naveen, PW6. Due to said accident, the marriage prospects of the appellant stands considerably diminished. In the circumstance, a sum of `20,000/- is awarded to the appellant towards marriage prospects, which would meet the ends of justice. The enhanced amount of `55,000/- shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% from the date of filing the present appeal, till it is paid. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 26.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE