FAO No. 1571 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1571 of 2011 Date of decision May 23, 2011 Union of India and others ....... Appellants Versus Navdeep Singh ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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 by the Union against the award of compensation for injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident. The involvement of the Union's vehicle is an admitted fact and the Tribunal has also on consideration of evidence let in through eye witness found that the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Union was guilty of rashness and negligence. 2. As regards the treatment given to the appellant, the evidence had been given by examination of Senior accountant of CMC, Hospital, Ludhiana where he had first taken treatment and the bills which had been produced before the Tribunal were also sought to be proved through the record Clerk; Salesman AW-3's evidence was for proof of FAO No. 1571 of 2011 2 Ex.A-28, A-29, Ex.AW-5 who was a Supervisor of Deep Hospital was examined for proof of bills, Ex. A-30 to Ex.A-41. AW-6 was examined for proof of bills, A-60, A-92; AW-7 who was cashier in the Kang Hospital was examined to prove Ex. A-42 to Ex.A-59. AW-9 was examined for proof of final bill of Ex.A-1,Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-24 to Ex. A-45. The doctor as well as the radiographer were also examined for proof of injuries. The total medical expenses had been to the tune of `4,61,907/-. 3. Apart from the medical expenses incurred the Tribunal had awarded modest sum of `5,000/- for special diet, `5,000/- for pain and suffering in a case where a person had a fracture that required a long treatment, `10,000/- for loss of amenities in life and `10,000/- for loss of expectation of life and `5,000/- for attendant charges and `5,000/- on account of transportation. The additional amounts awarded under various heads over and above the medical expenses are very modest and I cannot accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the award is arbitrary or excessive. The award is on the other hand, reasonable and just. I find no reason to interfere with the same. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 23 , 2011 archana