IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 1018 of 1991 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Sarita. ....... Appellant through Nemo. Versus Kulwant Singh and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Nemo. Respondent no.2 through Shri Munishwar Puri, Advocate. 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 appeal is directed against common award/ judgment dated 17.9.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (for short, `the Tribunal') in two claim petitions, one bearing M.A.C.T. No. RT/64 of 27.7.1987/23.12.1989,which was preferred by the appellant and another by her husband, namely, Kulbhushan. In a motor vehicular accident which took place on 14.4.1987, the appellant suffered the following injuries:- 1. Complaints of bleeding from nose, clotted blood present. Advised x-ray nasal bone. 2. Contusion 5 x 5 cm right side of the forehead. Defused F.A.O.No.1018 of 1991 -2- ... swelling present. Red in colour. Advised x-ray skull. 3. Avulsion of nail of of left great toe with bleeding. 4. Abrasion 2.2 cm anterior to left knee, red in colour. 5. Abrasion 3x3 cm anterior to right knee red in colour. 6. Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm dorsum of proximal inter pharyngeal joint or girth middle finger. 7. Contusion 7 x 3 cm medial aspect of upper 1/3rd of left forearm red in colour. 8. Lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.4 cm left parietal region. Bleeding present. PW3-Dr.Charanjit Behniwal, who had examined the appellant opined that all the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature as no fracture was detected on skull or nasal bone. He proved the medicolegal report as Exhibit P2. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15000/- to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The respondents were, jointly as well as severally, held liable to pay the amount of compensation and interest. Feeling dis-satisfied, the appellant has filed this appeal. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perusing the whole record, I am of the opinion that the impugned award in so far as the appellant is concerned does not warrant any interference. F.A.O.No.1018 of 1991 -3- ... As seen above, the appellant had received simple injuries in the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which, considering the nature of injuries, is just and adequate. Therefore, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 11,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge