K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same accident. FAO No. 2114 of 1996 relates to death of a male aged 35 years. He was said to be a Carpenter in a private company earning Rs. 2500/ -per month. The claimants were wife, 3 minor children and parents.
(2.) AS against the evidence led to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/ -, the Tribunal took the monthly income at Rs. 1500/ -, made deduction of Rs. 300, adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,30,400/ -. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants would state that apart from the evidence of the widow herself, PW11 had been examined who was the husband of the partner in Jindal Industries which was said to have availed of the services of the deceased as Carpenter. He had given evidence to the effect that that they were paying the deceased Rs. 2500/ -per month and the cross -examination had been on the lines that there was no documentary proof for such payment and he did not have accounts to show that said amount had been paid to him. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of PW11 in toto. If the claimant had given evidence that her husband was earning Rs. 2500/ -and bring in corroboration of her version through yet another person who ought to have known the truth, if such engagement were to be believed, then the evidence of PW11 ought not to have been rejected by the only fact that no documentary evidence was produced for his engagement. A small time carpenter in a small industry employing a few persons, may not at all times have documents to prove the employment and I will not take that to be a serious handicap to appreciate the evidence. The deceased was supporting fairly a large family of wife, 3 minor children and parents and a provision for Rs. 2500/ -for the period when death had taken place in the year 1993 cannot be said to be high. I will reappraise the compensation in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as : 2009 6 SCC 121 and tabulate the entitlement of the claimants as follows: JUDGEMENT_350_LAWS(P&H)2_2011.htm 4. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The wife and 3 children alone shall be entitled to the enhancement of claim secured through this order. 5. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 6. FAO No. 2115 of 1996 adduces the claim for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The injuries left him with two fractures, one at the right elbow and another at the pelvis. He was originally admitted in Civil Hospital on 30.4.1993 and continued his treatment at the hospital before he was shifted to a private nursing home. The Doctor who had treated him gave evidence as PW6 and also certified that he had impairment in range of movement of his elbow and also restriction of range of movement of the lower limb, both as regards the flexion and rotation external and internal. For the restriction of range of movement of the elbow, the Doctor had assessed it as 40% disability, for supination the assessment was 5%, as regards the lower limb for flexion the assessment was 10% and for restriction of rotation at 5%. He had added all of them to certify that patient had 60% disability. 7. The Doctor himself had given evidence to the effect that he had operated his arm and plated it for reducing the fracture and applied tension band wiring. He stated that he might require yet another operation for removal of the hardware implanted and some functional improvement will also be possible at such a time. The medical bills filed and proved on record were to the extent of Rs. 5535/ -. I will provide for an additional amount of Rs. 2500/ -for future operation and also award Rs. 1500/ -for attendant charges and Rs. 1500/ -for special diet. For a fracture of arm and also fracture of the pelvis with surgeries already done, a prospect of future surgery as well, I will award the compensation of 20,000/ -for pain and suffering. The restriction of range of movement as brought out through the Doctor's evidence and the certificate, could not have resulted in loss of earning capacity. He was said to be an agriculturist and produced no proof of possession of lands. He was also said to be engaged in the avocation of trading of insecticides and pesticides. Assuming that he would have been earning at least Rs. 2500/ -per month, I will provide for Rs. 5000/ -towards loss of income and provide for Rs. 15000/ -towards loss of amenities for the inconvenience that he has to carry through rest of his life. The compensation under the various heads are tabulated below: JUDGEMENT_350_LAWS(P&H)2_20111.htm 8. The amount in excess over what has already been awarded by the Tribunal shall attract interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 9. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 10. Both the appeals are allowed to the above extent.;