I have taken into consideration the submissions made by Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant, so also impunged judgement and award rendered by the Tribunal. It has been stated that, in instant matter, though the appellant claimed that at the time of accident the monthly income was of Rs.3000/-, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income of Rs.1500/-. In this connection, Mr.Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant, took me through the relevant observations made by the Tribunal regarding the oral evidence adduced by the appellant.
I have taken into consideration the observation made by the Tribunal and it transpires that the Tribunal took into consideration the oral deposition of the appellant, so also his brother Keshavsinh. The fact remains that before the Tribunal, no documentary evidence was produced in respect of sale of any crop either to any market yard or to any individual and more particularly, the average income derived from the agricultural work. Even considering the over all evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the appellant can be assessed at Rs.1500/-. It further transpires that though there was no cogent evidence produced in respect of age of accused that at the time of accident, appellant was of 42 years or 51 years of age, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 years. The medical expenses as per the bills produced was awarded. No interference is warranted regarding the assessment of disability made by the tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately, awarded in all 2,26,441/- by way of compensation and the same amount has been worked out in a table detailed in the impugned judgment. This Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Trial Court, for the purpose of enhancement. The appeal, therefore, lacks merits and deserves dismissal. The appeal stands dismissed.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish Top