FAO No. 5431 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5431 of 2010 Date of decision March 7, 2011 Ram Saroop ....... Appellant Versus Davinder Kumar and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. M. L. Saini , Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Rita Kohli , Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. None for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for an injury suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had suffered an amputation of the left forearm, the disability of which was assessed at 60%. This incidentally results as per the table by the Workmen Compensation Act in 60% loss of earning power. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that for loss of hand of a carpenter, the loss of earning capacity must be taken as 100%. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 it was observed that a carpenter who had a loss of use of a hand should be taken as suffering a complete loss of earning capacity. This I would take to be not a rule of FAO No. 5431 of 2010 2 thumb but to be confined to the fact of what can happen in a case where the evidence is that he is unable to do any kind of work. A 100% loss of earning power must be understood to apply in a situation where a person loses all skills of earning. By an amputation of the left arm, while the earning skills to work as carpenter could surely have resulted, he could not be said to have lost all earning skills. Loss of earning capacity must be understood in the context of what any other engagement could fetch to such a person. A carpenter is not placed in a purely skilled category and being a semi skilled person himself, it should be at least possible for him to extend his services for a unskilled work. I would therefore take the loss of earning capacity in such a situation to be equivalent to the loss of percentage of disability namely 60%. 3. Learned counsel states that the income has been taken as `3,000/- when the evidence was that he was earning `5,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no proof that he was earning `5,000/-. The proof that we look in summary proceedings in motor accident cases would be such proof which is capable of being produced and which is not produced. A carpenter who is employed in unorganized sector obtains no proof of engagement at every time when he is engaged nor does he obtains all the payments through negotiable instruments which could afford a positive proof. If an unskilled labourer can get on an average at least `3,000/- per month. I would assume that a carpenter would have earned `5,000/-. The evidence given by him that he was earning `5,000/- per month could not be taken to be exaggerated. I would take an income to be `5,000/- per month and work out 60% on the same as the resultant loss of earning namely `3,000/- per month. I would adopt a multiplier of 15 suitable to the age and find the loss of earning power at `3,000 60% x 12 x 15 equivalent to `3,24,000/- The Tribunal had awarded `15,000/- towards pain and suffering which I would FAO No. 5431 of 2010 3 enhance to `25,000/- . The Tribunal has awarded `7,000/- for medical expenses which I shall retain. The over all compensation shall be `3,56,000/-. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The award is modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 7, 2011 archana