RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case for interference in appeal is made out.
(2.) THE appellant had suffered certain injuries as a result of an accident, which took place on 02.08.1997 while he was travelling from Haridawar to Bikaner. The appellant was travelling in the bus of Corporation. As the driver of the bus had applied sudden breaks, a vehicle coming from behind hit it from the back. As a result of that impact, the appellant a passenger in the bus owned by the Corporation received three injuries. One was simple obrasion and two were grievous injuries. However, it was found by the Accidents Claim Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge that injuries did not result any permanent disablement. The appellant had laid claim to compensation of over 3 lacs rupees as a result of sustaining such injuries inter alia on the ground permanent disability suffered by him had resulted in permanent loss of annual income. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal found that there was no evidence of permanent disablement nor there is any evidence to suggest that the loss in income was of perennial or permanent in nature for entire period of his active service. The appellant was serving in LIC as a Development Officer and medical expenses had been reimbursed by the employer. However, notwithstanding the finding that the claimant had not suffered any permanent disablement and that the loss in income was not permanent and perennial in nature, had yet awarded compensation by applying multiplier of the remaining period of service as if there was a permanent loss of income of Rs. 10,000/ - per annum. Which could continue for twenty three years. Apparently, the aforesaid findings on the face of it were incongruous and could not be sustained by the learned Single Judge. If there was no permanent disablement and no permanent loss of income, the multiplier of remaining period of service applied to assumed annual loss of income was wholly unsustainable. He could on the findings recorded by the Tribunal would have been entitled to loss of income till the period he had fully recovered. In view thereof, the award of compensation by the Accidents Claim Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/ - was grossly excessive on the face of it.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge in the aforesaid circumstances reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant to Rs. 1,30,000/ -, which in our opinion does not call for any interference by this Court.;