IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.399 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:07.10.2010 Shrimati Ranjit Kaur ....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana. ---- 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 claimant comes on appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation for a fracture in the hip that she had sustained in a motor accident. The doctor, who had treated her, had given evidence as PW2, who had assessed the disability that resulted in restriction of hip movement at 15% and pain for the hip assessed at 6%. The total disability was taken as 21%. The Tribunal did not accept the doctor's certificate since he was not a government doctor and provided for attendant's expenses for a period of five years @ Rs.200/- per month, allowed medical expenses for the bills produced and determined the compensation of Rs.23,720/-. FAO No.399 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The contention of the appellant is that no adequate compensation has been assessed for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has taken the pain and suffering to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. She had also been in the hospital for 14 days and she was in crutches for 2 ½ months. I would take the pain and suffering for a fracture at Rs.5,000/- and the hospitalization for 14 days and for her impairment of movement and the difficulty that she must have undergone for 2 ½ months, I will add another Rs.10,000/- and take the compensation for pain and suffering as Rs.15,000/-. I would retain the same amount of compensation as taken by the Tribunal for the attendant charges for five years and also admit the same medical expenses of what has been taken by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the doctor had given evidence to the effect that he had charged Rs.2,905/- and that has not been included, I will add the same at Rs.3,000/-. From the disability which the doctor has assessed, there is no means of knowing whether it is permanent and how it had otherwise impacted her contribution to domestic life. Though the value of domestic services would have to be duly reckoned, for inadequacy of the proof regarding the nature of disability as to whether it was permanent or temporary and how the claimant had been put to difficulties in managing the household, I can only provide for compensation in the manner in which the Tribunal has done and also add an amount of another Rs.10,000/- towards the disability suffered by her for loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal has taken Rs.1,500/- for diet which I shall retain. All told, the claimant would be entitled to additional amount of Rs.23,000/-, which will attract FAO No.399 of 1998 (O&M) - 3 - interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 3. The appeal is allowed to the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.10.2010 sanjeev