FAO (MVA) No. 277 of 2004 a/w FAOs No. 292 and 354 of 2004. FAO No. 277 of 2004: 25.7.2008 Present: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. FAO No. 292 of 2004: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate for respondents 1 (a) to 1 (c) and 2. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. FAO No. 354 of 2004: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. FAOs No. 277 & 292 of 2004: It is jointly stated by the parties that the present lis is covered by the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta) in FAO No. 341 of 2001 decided on 24.10.2005. It will be apt to reproduce the findings as under: “In so far as the aforesaid aspect relating to the liability of the appellant not to pay the award amount on the ground of deceased being carried in the truck as gratuitous passengers is concerned, on a very close examination of the evidence, it clearly reveals that deceased and other persons were traveling in the vehicle along with their goods from Parwanu to Kothkhai Bagi. In their capacity as owners of the goods being carried in the vehicle, they were traveling in the truck at the relevant time. The claimants in the claim petitions have clearly established beyond any doubt that the deceased were traveling in the truck as owners of the goods and that they were not traveling as passengers or as gratuitous passengers.” In view of the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Single Judge in FAO No. 341 of 2001 arising from the same accident, FAOs No. 277 and 292 of 2004 are dismissed. FAO (MVA) No. 354 of 2004: This FAO has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award in MAC Petition No. 134-S/2 of 2003/98. Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that his client was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by running a shop and he was also doing agricultural and horticulture work. The claimant was admitted in P.G.I., Chandigarh on 17.10.1998. Surgical procedure was conducted at P.G.I., Chandigarh and open amputation of the right foot of the claimant was carried out upto mid foot level. He was discharged from P.G.I. on 23.10.1998 and thereafter, he remained admitted in I.G.M.C., Shimla for 20-25 days. Skin was also grafted from his right foot as per statement of Dr. R.S. Yadav (PW-4). PW- 5 Dr. Ravinder Mokta had examined the claimant on 16.11.1999. The Medical Board has assessed the disability of the claimant to be 55% permanent because of post traumatic above ankle amputation right side leg. It is, thus, admitted case of the parties that the claimant was operated upon at P.G.I. and he also remained under treatment in I.G.M.C., Shimla. His disability was to the extent of 55%. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the cost of treatment. The claimant has deposed that he was running a shop in his village. He was earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- per month. He has further deposed that he was looking-after the agricultural and horticulture work and his income was more than one lac rupees per annum before the accident. PW-3, Ramesh Chand has supported the claimant. He has stated that the claimant was running a shop. Even after his disability, he is running a shop. True it is that he had suffered a handicap and he has to live with his handicap throughout his life. The learned MACT has assessed the loss of earning suffered by the claimant due to disability at Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6000/- per annum. The claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident. Learned MACT had applied the multiplier of 15 for calculating the total loss of income likely to be suffered by the claimant. The total amount was worked out to Rs. 90,000/-. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the pain, shock and suffering loss of amenities. He has been awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- due to injury suffered by him in the accident. The claimant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his plea that he was earning Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/- per month and his income has come down after the accident. He could not substantiate how and in what manner the income, if any, from agricultural or horticultural proceeds has been affected. It was for the claimant to prove the loss of income due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The trial Court on the basis of medical evidence and statements of PW1 and PW3 has correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for the loss of earning suffered by the claimant. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been correctly arrived at by the learned MACT towards the cost of treatment. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- paid by way of compensation for pain, shock and suffering a loss of amenities is also in accordance with law. There is no error in the award of learned MACT. Consequently, there is no merit in this FAO (No. 354 of 2004) and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 25, 2008. (cr)