FAO No.5629 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 25.04.2011 Sh. Mool Chand Chawla, aged 55 years s/o Sh. Manohar Lal Chawla R/o H.No.249, Top Floor, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Anil Kumar s/o Sh. A.S. Rawat and others .....Respondents Present: Mr.Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. 2. The only point that the learned counsel argues is that the petitioner had permanent disability and Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier theory and provided for loss of income on such basis. The disability as elicited and brought through Doctor is as follows:- “Malunited fracture right clavicle with proximal edge of the bone. Mild restriction of movements of right shoulder. Movements of the right knee almost normal. Crepilations palpable right knee. Patient complained of pain on walking and standing. PPD 10% with respect to whole body.” 3. This evidence does not specify that the injury was such as to FAO No.5629 of 2010 (O&M) -2- render incapable of doing work which he was previously doing and the injuries impacted his earning skills. The issue of application of multiplier theory would arise only in case where the disability had impacted the earning skills and the loss of earning capacity were to be calculated. In all other situations, the assessment of compensation of disability must be taken as making a provision for loss of amenities or reduction in expectation of life. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.20,000/- for 10% disability, which had been assessed by the doctor. I find that the award passed by the Tribunal is appropriate and just and I find no reason to make an intervention with the award. 4. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 25, 2011 Pankaj*