FAO No.5709 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5709 of 2010 Date of Decision. 02.05.2011 Naurang Singh son of Sh. Goverdhan, resident of village Phulkan, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa, aged 38 years ......Appellant Versus Subhash Chander son of Sh. Het Ram and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Sidhu, 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 compensation assessed at Rs.92,223/-. The claimant was engaged in an avocation of sealing tyre punctures and claimed that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and by virtue of the injuries, he had suffered disability to the tune of 10%. The nature of injuries had not been clearly brought out through evidence except that it is seen that he had produced medical bills. There was not even evidence to the effect that he had remained admitted in the civil hospital at Sirsa and Dr. Pawan Kumar spoke about the fact that the claimant had a disability to the extent of 10%. Yet another person, by name Mahabir, was also injured in the same accident and there had been clear evidence that he had fracture and the fracture was assessed as resulting in 35% disability. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal took 10% disability as also resulting in 10% loss of earning power FAO No.5709 of 2010 -2- and proceeded to adopt a multiplier theory by taking a multiplier of 16 and provided for loss of earning capacity at Rs.57,600/-. The Tribunal had also provided for pain and suffering, special diet and future treatment another Rs.20,000/- and added a sum of Rs.14,623/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation for transportation expenses. It is not clear from the evidence again that he had incurred any exclusive transport expenses. On the other hand claim for transport expenses was made at the instance of other claimant Mahabir and he produced receipt, which was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that proof of the document marked as Mark G did not have any probative value and rejected the claim. The rejection of transport expenses for Mahabir is also challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant as resulting in loss, for both of them had been transported by the same vehicle and equal amount must have been granted to him as well. I do not find that any acceptable evidence was placed as regards transport expenses before the Tribunal. If it were to be taken that both the persons were injured in the accident, had filed same receipts and the transport expenses as covered through Mark G at Rs.20,500/- must have been split between both the persons, the fact that it was not provided, cannot assume any significance, for, while fixing the award of compensation by the Tribunal, taking 10% disability as resulting in 10% loss of earning capacity is itself defective and faulty. As I have observed, evidence of PW4 does not bring out any details of the nature of injuries suffered to the appellant. It is not seen again whether there had been a fracture to the appellant. All that it shows is that he had FAO No.5709 of 2010 -3- been taking treatment and he had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.14,623/-. 2. The overall compensation assessed at Rs.92,223/- is, in my view, appropriate and just and more than what the case deserves for the evidence that had been adduced. 3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Pankaj*