FAO No.784 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.784 of 1994 Date of Decision.14.12.2010 Miss Deepika Khira d/o Desa Singh ......Appellant Versus Dalip Singh son of Bura Singh and others and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 7. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.6. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had suffered an amputation of her hand and she had gone to USA for securing an electronically operated above elbow prosthesis. The claimant had been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,73,155/-. The claimant's grievance is that the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.1,30,000/- towards the cost of the artificial limb when actually the claimant had gone to USA to secure a prosthesis which was not at that time being FAO No.784 of 1994 -2- manufactured in India. The claimant had relied on a certificate issued by one Dr. Sarvesh Mathur at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana that the said electronically operated elbow prosthesis was not being manufactured in India and therefore, there was a justification for consideration of the claim for transportation and cost of the equipment. In a situation that was dealt with similar to what obtains in this case in Inderjit Kaur Vs. Punjab State and others 1985 PLR 521 where the claimant wanted a functional artificial arm and such an arm was not being manufactured in India, the court held that where the particular equipment is not available and a claimant had perforce to undertake an air travel, the Court held that it shall be justified in awarding the travel expenses as well as the cost of the equipment. I follow the same principle enunciated by this Court in the above case and I would hold that the entire cost of the equipment of Rs.5,30,400/- ought to have been awarded and the provision for only Rs.1,30,000/- was not appropriate. The difference of amount of Rs.4,00,400/- shall be provided to the claimant together with the travel expenses of Rs.52,885/-. The Tribunal had provided for Rs.25,000/- towards the transport expenses and I would, therefore, deduct such amount from the above and take the net amount of Rs.4,28,285/- as the additional amount payable for the claimant. I am not making any interference with reference to the assessment of compensation under other heads namely attendant charges, special diet, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and loss of prospect of marriage. The Tribunal had considered each one of the heads and FAO No.784 of 1994 -3- has awarded the amounts, which in my view, are appropriate and just. 2. The additional amount of Rs.4,28,285/- shall also attract interest @6% from the date of award till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 14, 2010 Pankaj*