Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh And Another vs Raj Kumar Trikha And Others on 7 January, 2011
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Cross Objection No.14-CII of 1997 in
FAO No.43 of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision:07.01.2011
Surinder Singh and another ....Appellants
versus
Raj Kumar Trikha and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the objector.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Pradeep Bedi,
Advocate, for the Insurance Company.
----
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. Cross objection is for enhancement for compensation for a person, who had a fracture of the left leg. He was said to have been hospitalized for three days and he had under treatment continuously for 1 ½ month. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- for medical expenses. The claim now is for enhancement of compensation saying that all the several heads of claim relating to injuries such as, attendant charges, special diet, transport charges have not been properly assessed. Indeed, there is no evidence for the above heads. The accident has taken place on 02.03.1985 and the award was passed in the year 1987. The cross objection had been filed nearly Cross Objection No.14-CII of 1997 in FAO No.43 of 1987 (O&M) -2- 10 years after the filing of the appeal. The appeal by the owner himself was disposed of on 19.07.2006 and the learned counsel points out that the cross-objection had not been disposed of at that time and, therefore, wants a reappraisal of the same.
2. For an injury that has resulted in a fracture, I am not prepared to re-examine the question of adequacy of compensation after 25 years of the accident with no worthwhile evidence to sustain a plea for enhancement. The amount of compensation of Rs.17,000/- already awarded is just and there is no need for consideration for enhancement. The cross-objection is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.01.2011 sanjeev