FAO No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 23.05.2011 2. FAO No.2446 of 2011 Smt. Kiran widow of Tek Singh alias Tek Chand son of Bhika Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Boby son of Chandra Khan and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abinashi Singh, Advocate for the appellants. 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. There is a delay of 2588 days in filing the appeals. 2. Both the appeals are connected as arising out of the same accident. The claim petition has been decided on 2.6.2003 by the Tribunal. There is no justification for the delay. The delay stated is that his Clerk had a heart-attack and they did not know that the appeal had been numbered or not. 3. Even otherwise if the case has to be examined on merits, the case in FAO No.6931 of 2010 related to death of the person aged 40 years plus, who was said to be engaged in agriculture work and doing odd jobs. The Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.100/- per day and adopted a multiplier of 14. The learned Senior Counsel states that multiplier of 20 must have been adopted and income must have been FAO No.6931 of 2010 (O&M) -2- taken at an amount higher than Rs.3,000/- as adopted by the Tribunal. I do not find any justification for such a contention, especially when income was taken as Rs.3,000/- in the case where no tangible proof of income was produced before the Tribunal. I find no error in the approach of the Tribunal in a case which was itself filed on 24.08.2001 and decided on 2.6.2003. The overall compensation awarded at Rs.2,35,200/- is appropriate and just and there is no scope for intervention. 4. The appeal in FAO No.2446 of 2011 arose out of the same accident and this adverts to the issue of injury said to have been suffered in motor accident. The copy of MLR, which had been produced before the Court, showed that the claimant received four lacerated wounds and bruises and no doctor was examined to prove his injuries. The only documents which the claimant had relied upon were bills of medicines purchased at Rs.7,000/-. Even X-ray report which had been filed in Court was not properly proved and had not been exhibited as documentary evidence. The Tribunal had observed that there was no bone injury. In such circumstances, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/-, which could have been at least Rs.7,000/-, which was proved on record as medical expenses incurred. I am not prepared to re-examine the issue of quantum for Rs.2,000/-, which is not properly provided. 5. The awards are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 23, 2011 Pankaj*