FAO No.30 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.30 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 28.04.2011 Tarsem Singh aged about 36 years son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Ghanaula, Post Office Ghanauli, Tehsil and District Ropar, Punjab. ......Appellant Versus Nek Mohamad son of Sh. Sadh Mohamad, resident of village Kasamowal, Post Office Manpura, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (owner and driver of Mahindera Balaro Plus Jeep bearing temporary registration No.51-A(T) 6844) and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, 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. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is against an award for compensation for Rs.1,53,000/- for the injuries suffered in a motor accident. The petitioner had suffered fracture in the lower limb and after treatment, the doctor had given evidence to the effect that he had a 20% disability. I would understand 20% disability as resulting in a functional disability of an organ and the range of movements. It has not been brought out clearly from the evidence that the disability is such that he cannot continue his employment. The contention is that he was working as Security Guard and subsequent to the accident he had left the job. A person leaving the job or dropping his employment on his own volition is FAO No.30 of 2011 (O&M) -2- not a person, who can complain that there has been loss of earning only by the fact that he had resigned from his job unless it is brought out that the disability is such that he cannot cannot continue in his employment. Consquently, he cannot be heard to complain that there has been any loss of earning capacity. Learned counsel refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud and others 2007(12) Scale 792 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the situation of a person suffering 45% permanent disability reducing his future earning capacity. The Court was, therefore, making provision for multiplier to determine the loss of earning capacity. This decision must be seen in a context of when there is evidence to show that the disability resulted in loss of employment as well. It is invariably a question of fact as to how a particular injury impacts the employment skills or future earning capacity. It cannot be a matter of assumption in every case that when there is a 20% disability, it must also result in 20% loss of earning. The difference between permanent disability resulting in earning capacity and functional disability has been brought out by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another 2010(12) SCALE 265 and it is invariably a matter of evidence as to how the disability could be translated in terms of loss of earning capacity. 2. The Tribunal has provided for Rs.40,000/- as compensation for disability, which I would understand as going towards loss of amenities of life for the inconvenience that he may have to carry through the rest of his life. The Tribunal has also provided for compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income and for medical expenses. There is no other FAO No.30 of 2011 (O&M) -3- point which is urged before this Court. 3. The compensation awarded at Rs.1,53,000/-, in my view, accords with evidence and there is no scope for enhancement. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 28, 2011 Pankaj*