V. JAGANNATHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant N. W. K. R. T. C. is aggrieved by the award of Rs. 2,33,522/- as compensation to the respondent-claimant. The grievance of the appellant is that the claimant has produced false bills to claim more compensation under the head of medical expenses and this is evident from a bare perusal of the medical bills produced by the claimant himself. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal could not have awarded compensation for loss of future earning capacity since the claimant has failed to show as to what was the loss suffered by him in his business following the accident and the disability. Therefore, the compensation is excessive is the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant.

( 2 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the earnings of the claimant was taken at Rs. 100/- per day as a coolie and, therefore, the loss of earning capacity awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the submissions made by both sides, I find that the claimant has tried all the tricks in his bag in order to get more compensation. This inference is drawn from a perusal of the medical bills produced by the claimant. As rightly pointed out by the appellant's Counsel, many of the bills do not bear the signature of the medical shop owner and some of them do not even mention the name of the claimant or the name of the doctor and, strangely, on 9-3-2002, the claimant claims to have purchased medicines from the very same shop not on one occasion, but on 15 occasions on the very same day. Yet another aspect is, Ex. P-89, a hospital bill does not bear the date on which it was issued nor is there any seal of the person issuing the same. The amount mentioned in Ex. P-93 is repeated in Ex. P-89.

( 4 ) AS if the above material is not sufficient to indicate that the claimant tried to boost the compensation by producing such bills, even with regard to the occupation is concerned, the evidence of the claimant is uninspiring. The Tribunal has taken his occupation as a coolie for the purpose of working out the loss of earning capacity. But, strangely, it is not the case of the claimant that he was a coolie but, his specific case is that he was engaged in multiple business inasmuch as he claims that he is doing truck transport business and also claims that he is a partner in automobile shop and further, he runs a chicken centre and his income from all these business is rs, 12,000/- per month. But, no Income Tax particulars are forthcoming from the claimant in regard to his business or in regard to the income from the said businesses. Even assuming that the claimant was doing the said businesses, yet, the question of awarding loss of future earning capacity will not arise inasmuch as the claimant has not been able to place cogent and positive evidence before the Tribunal in proof of the income from the businesses before and after the accident. A Division Bench of this Court has observed in a case reported in I. L. R. 2000 Karnataka 3355 that unless sufficient evidence is forthcoming with regard to the income from the business and the loss suffered consequent to the injury and the disability, it is impermissible to award compensation merely on speculative terms under the head of loss of future earning capacity. As such, I am of the view that the Tribunal was in error in awarding the amount under the head of loss of future earning capacity and, therefore, the entire amount awarded under the said head is disallowed.

( 5 ) IN the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal gets reduced to Rs. 1,07,522/ -. To the said extent, the appeal is allowed and the award stands modified and the rate of interest will be at 6% in respect of the compensation amount. The amount in deposit be transferred to the M. A. C. T.

-

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document