The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injuries and death resulting from motor accidents, considering factors such as age, domestic service value, medical expenses, pain and suffering, disability, and loss of dependence.

K.Kannan, J.

1. FAO Nos.469 to 472 of 1987 address the claims of the respective claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. FAO No.469 of 1987 is at the instance of the children of the deceased, who was their mother aged 53 years. She was house wife and the claimants were adult sons and daughters. The post-mortem certificate revealed that she was aged 58 years and in oral evidence, it had been stated that she was aged 56 years. The Tribunal considered the fact that the eldest son was 38 years of age and thereforei took that deceased must have been 58 years of age. Learned counsel states that the age itself was not in dispute and the age as entered in the postmortem and what was spoken to by the witness ought to have been, therefore, accepted. I will accede to such a contention and take the age to be 53 years. The claimants were said to be members of the joint family with their mother and their father had already expired. I will take the value of the domestic service contributed to the family at Rs.1,000/- per month and adopt a multiplier of 11 and take the loss of dependence at Rs. 1,32,000/-. I will make a further addition of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and round off the figure at Rs.1,35,000/-. The amount in excess over what has been already directed shall also attract interest @6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment and it shall be distributed equally amongst all the claimants.

3. FAO No.469 of 1987 is allowed to the above extent.

4. FAO No.470 of 1997 is for enhancement of claim for injury suffered by Ankit, who was aged one. The Tribunal had considered the fact that the child had a soft tissue swelling of the left thigh and he had fracture of the left thigh and shaft had been introduced therein. Medical bills had been produced to the extent of Rs.283.50. The Tribunal took the medical expenses to be Rs.1,000/- and provided for an additional amount of Rs.9,000/- for pain and suffering and assessed the compensation at Rs.10,000/-. For a fracture and surgical intervention, a provision for Rs.9,000/- in the year 1985, in my view, is appropriate and there is no scope for any enhancement.

5. The appeal in FAO No.470 of 1987 is, therefore, dismissed.

6. FAO No.471 of 1987 relates to a claim for compensation for injury suffered by Usha Gupta, who was aged 30 years. She was a post graduate and said to be a householder. She had a fracture of collar bone, fracture of ulna and fracture of left ankle and injury to her right eye and injuries to both sides of scalp. She had been hospitalized for six days and had been under treatment of one Dr. N.D. Aggarwal at Patiala sub-sequently.

7. Dr. Rajinder Pal Sharma, who had initially treated her at the medical college and hospital at Rohtak produced medical report evidencing the injuries and he also spoke about the fact that square nailing had been done to reduce a fracture and that it could be removed after the union of the bones which was observed by him that there had been a proper union of the bones. The assessment of disability, which he had made at 20% was on the basis that there had been a reduction in circular movement of the arm to the extent of 20%. The Tribunal found that there could be some exaggeration on the part of Dr. Rajinder Pal Sharma in the assessment of disability. However, there was evidence that from the date when the accident took place on 5.12.1985, she was under treatment for fairly a long period of one year and she had also undergone a surgery for reduction of the fracture. The medical expenses and for transportation there was production of bills to the tune of Rs.5663.35 and the Tribunal assessed that there could have been more expenses incurred which are not supported by bills and allowed for Rs.10,000/- as going for medical expenses and transportation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.22,000/- for pain and suffering and assessed a total compensation of Rs.32,000/-. For three fractures, which she had obtained and for the surgical