FAO No.6112 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6112 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 06.04.2011 Shiv Kumar son of Sadhu Ram, aged about 20 years resident of village Biroli Tehsil and District Jind ......Appellant Versus Kulbhushan s/o Satish Kumar and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 for enhancement of claim for injuries suffered in an accident where the Tribunal has awarded Rs.49,000/- for a fracture in the leg. The evidence was that he had been admitted in the hospital on 28.08.2008 and he remained in the hospital till 10.09.2008. The doctor, who had performed surgery on him on 3.9.2008 had been examined and he had certified that the patient had suffered disability of 10%. The Tribunal provided for compensation that included Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for special diet, Rs.4,000/- for loss of income and Rs.20,000/- for disability. 2. The learned counsel states that for the medical expenses, the Tribunal must have awarded a larger amount since the operation had also been performed. The Tribunal has awarded expenses for bills which had been produced. If according to him, operation charges had not been FAO No.6112 of 2010 (O&M) -2- given, there must be a proof for the same or at least when a doctor was examined, it must have been elicited through him, the charges made by him and the amount that was paid by the claimant. Same way, the counsel also states that the Tribunal has not provided for transportation. Pecuniary heads of claim would address provisions only if adequate evidence is led. The counsel is unable to show any document which had been produced and which was not properly apprised. I do not find any error in the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has addressed all heads of claim properly. 3. I do not, therefore, find any justification for intervention. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 06, 2011 Pankaj*