1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 495 of 1997 (NAKO V/S PANNA LAL & ORS) Date of Judgment : 6.11.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI N.P.GUPTA,J. Mr. B.N.Kalla, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, the respondent. BY THE COURT: This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. The learned Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a sum of Rs.17,800/- by way of compensation for the personal injury. The necessary facts are that the claimant is said to be going on the road, and the delinquent motorcycle hit him, as a result of which he sustained fracture in the left leg. The learned Tribunal found while deciding issue No.2 that the claimant was 18 years of age at the time of accident, and in the claim petition, he had alleged to be earning Rs.1000/- per month by fishing, and another 2 Rs.1000/- per month by agriculture, but then while in the witness-box, he has only deposed to be working as a labour, receiving Rs.30 per day. Then the learned trial Court has considered the consequence of accident, and noticed that he has come to the Court by ascending staircase from bus stand by foot, and that he discharges all his daily pursuit normally. Likewise, A.W.2 Kalu has also deposed that the claimant does his work normally. Then the evidence of A.W.3 Dr.Bajrang Singh has been referred, who has deposed the shortening of the leg, resulting into permanent disablement, and he has proved the disability certificate Ex.1, but therein the extent of shortening has not been given. Thus, the learned trial Court has concluded the permanent disability to be only 5%. Then assessing the income at Rs.500/- per month, employing multiplier of 16, loss of income has been assessed at Rs.4800/-. Then a sum of Rs.3000/- has been awarded for loss of income for a further period of 6 months, and another sum of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering, on account of the fracture, and permanent disablement. Learned counsel tried to submit that since the claimant was earning Rs.2000/- per month, the Tribunal was in error in assessing the income at Rs.500/- per month only. Learned counsel was pointedly asked to point out the evidence, which proves that the claimant was earning Rs.2000/- per month prior to accident, but he could not 3 point out any evidence. I have also gone through the statement of the claimant, and do not find any misreading thereof. In view of the above, in my view, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is inadequate, requiring any interference in appeal. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/