FAO No.1396 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1396 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: February 17, 2011 BALDEV KRISHAN ...APPELLANT VERSUS GURMAIL SINGH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. ANANT KATARAIA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4. MR. R.C. KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR MR. R.M. SURI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim of compensation for the injuries suffered in an accident. AW-2 Dr. J.S. Sandhu spoke with reference to the entries in MLR that showed that the claimant had several injuries, out of which injuries No.1 to 3 were declared simple, while injury No.5 was got under observation and injuries No.7 and 9 were required to be seen after x- ray. The Doctor himself admitted that he had not kept the patient under observation and he did not know whether he came subsequently. With such a poor quality of evidence coming from the petitioner's side and no proof of any grievous injuries, the Tribunal had awarded `500/-. 2. In appeal, the notice had been ordered on the plea by the FAO No.1396 of 1992 -2- appellant that the petitioner was under treatment for a period of 2 months and suffered permanent disability. It is not seen from the judgement or the evidence of witnesses that there was any permanent disability. The award itself had been made only against the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and the insurance company had been exonerated. 3. Even in the grounds of appeal, I do not find any reference to a plea that the insurance company must have been made liable. There is no representation for the appellant today and I examined the case only with reference to what is contained in the award of the Tribunal, with the assistance of the counsel for the insurance company. I see no cause for any enhancement with the poor quality of evidence to support the petitioner's claim for enhancement. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. February 17, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE