IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No. 148 of 2010. Judgment Reserved on 12.5.2011. Date of Decision: 17th May,2011. _______________________________________________ Smt.Asha Rani. ...Petitioner. Versus. Bimal Roy and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner : Mr.S.D.Vasudeva, Advocate. For respondent 1&2: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent-3. :Mr.I.N.Mehta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J This appeal would have been dismissed on the short ground of non compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2010 when delay in filing the appeal was condoned for no other reason but the appellant should not suffer injustice which order was passed on the plea forcefully urged on behalf of the appellant that she is a lady who has been disabled from earning her livelihood consequent to the injuries which she had sustained in the accident. While considering this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes.. 2 Act, this Court had condoned the delay on imposition of cost of Rs.4,400/- after ten weeks time had been granted for deposit of the costs. But when this case was taken up on 12.5.2011, there was no compliance but only defiance to the court order. However, treating this as an exceptional case, this appeal has been considered on merits. The appellant herein has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,34,851/- along with 9% interest from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization. The grouse of the petitioner is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not considered the extent of the disability which affects her earning capacity. The learned court relied upon Ext.PW4/A certifying the permanent disability to the extent of 10%. The earning capacity of the petitioner had not been proved but the court took Rs. 3,000/- per month as an indicator. She was aged 55 years at the time of the accident and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 1,34,851/- along with interest (under all heads including sum spent on treatment). I have scrutinized the record and I am not persuaded to hold that the learned Tribunal has in any manner erred in calculating the compensation awarded. I do find it strange that the appellant could not prove on record income of any kind of work which she was doing. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, the age of the appellant and the fact that she has not proved either her vocation or income which she was deriving there 3 form, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is rejected. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 17,2011(R)