Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Dissatisfied with the size of the award the appellant, a wrestler, has preferred this appeal. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 74,000/- as compensation for the grievous injury sustained by him on his right leg due to an accident occurred on March 26, 1988, resulting in 10% partial disability of his right leg.
(2.) "In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident. It involves some guess work. Some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." This is what the Supreme Court observed in R.T.D. Hattangad's case (1 (1995) A.C.C. 281).
(3.) In the instant case, the learned tribunal keeping in view of 10% partial disability and the age of the appellant which was 25 years at the time of accident awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the annual loss of future income suffered by him. In Swatantra Kumar v. Sheila Didi (1988 ACJ 74) the Punjab and Haryana High Court had occasion to examine the injuries of injured Arun Nehra who was injured in an accident resulting in 20% disability. Dr. D.N. Aggarwal stated before Tribunal as under: "Arun Nehra wears a shoe raise of 1.5 cms. on the left side. When he walks with bare foot he walks with a limp. There is a prominence over the middle of the leg and shortening of 2 cros." The court considering 30 years age of Arun Nehra applied multiplier of 20 and assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs. 400/- Mr. Nehra was an advocate and part time lecturer in Deptt. of Laws Applying the exact ratio of Swatantra Kumar's case (supra) if pecuniary loss sustained by the appellant is worked out then it comes as under: 200 x 12 x 20 = Rs. 48,000/- Whereas the learned tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant has only sustained 10% partial disability. There is no evidence suggesting that the appellant used to earn bread and butter from wrestling. The appellant is an agriculturist by profession. No wrestler was produced by the appellant to show that wrestling was not possible after having 10 percent partial disability. The tribunal passed award viewing all the circumstances with objective standard, and I see no reason to interfere in the finding arrived at by the learned tribunal.;