FAO No.4120 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4120 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2011 Mahipal ...Appellant(s) Versus Naresh Kumar and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Vivek Singhal, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. Heard. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the 1/4th deduction from the assessed income of the appellant is unsustainable keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Rani Gupta & others Vs.M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 900. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the learned Tribunal assessed monthly salary of the appellant as `3300/- per month. The appellant has suffered 75% permanent disability on account of accident. Keeping in view the permanent disability, the Tribunal made deductions to the extent of 1/4th from the income of the appellant and assessed his monthly salary as `2,465/-. FAO No.4120 of 2010 2 The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal wrongly made the deductions from the income of the appellant as he has suffered 75% permanent disability makes no substance. The aforesaid-judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case. In Rani Gupta's case, it has been observed as under:- 16. We may, however, note that in a case of permanent disability, where the injured even for a very small thing would have to depend on the services of another, a direction to deduct the said amount may not be insisted upon. It is not disputed that the appellant has suffered permanent disability and due to this, he would have many deprivations. However, the question arises for consideration is as to whether the deductions as carried out by the learned Tribunal is appropriate or not. According to the cited case, it is manifestly clear that if the injured has to depend on the service of another, the deductions from the assessed income of the injured may not be carried out. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record, which suggests that due to disability sustained by the appellant, he would be dependent on the service of another. In the circumstance, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted the income of the appellant from his assessed income. Although, no other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties, yet this Court has rescanned the entire case file minutely and finds that the award of the learned Tribunal is just, appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, no interference is called for. FAO No.4120 of 2010 3 In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 22.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mks JUDGE