- (1.) The appeal is against an award of compensation of Rs.1,40,200/- against the owner and the driver of the Car arrayed as first respondent and exonerating the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that at the relevant time of accident the license had already expired and therefore the Insurance Company could not be made liable.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he was a rickshaw puller and he had suffered fractures in both his legs. On that account he could not carry his avocation as a rickshaw puller. The doctor who had examined him had given examination certificate that he had suffered 40% disability. The Tribunal while determining the compensation constituted 40% loss of earning power and proceeded to take the income at Rs.1500/- per month and took the loss by adopting a multiplier of 16 and providing for Rs.1,15,200/- as loss of earning capacity it had also provided for medical treatment of Rs.10,000/- and assessed Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that he had completely lost his earning capacity and therefore the assessment is grossly low.
(3.) I cannot accede to the contention that a person that suffers a fracture is rendered immobile for the rest of his life. I do not have the benefit of evidence before me to obtain such an inference that he was not capable of working as a rickshaw puller for the rest of his life. The assessment made already is high enough that requires no modification. At best the injury could have only caused a temporary partial loss of earning capacity. There is no appeal by the respondents and therefore I will find no reason to reduce it. The assessment of pain and suffering and medical expenses have been reasonable enough. I see no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation.;