(1.) Manoj Kumar who is victim of an accident is in appeal before this Court as he is aggrieved by the payment of inadequate compensation towards loss caused to him in the accident of a private bus No. HP-06-1401. As a matter of fact the first respondent Khel Chand has deployed the appellantclaimant as driver with the bus in question. On the fateful day i.e. 3.1.2005 he was on the wheel of bus enroute Dansa to Rampur in Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. The bus met with an accident around 7:00 A.M. at a place namely Shaneri and as a result thereof the appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitionerclaimant) received injuries in his chest, back and also legs.
(2.) The petitioner-workman being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of compensation has approached this Court by filing the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation on the grounds inter alia that the compensation as awarded is contrary to the provisions contained in the Act, hence not legally sustainable. It has been urged that as per the disability certificate Ext.PW1/A the disability to the extent of 25% is permanent and in relation to whole body. PW1 Shri Desh Raj Chandel has categorically stated that the petitioner cannot adopt driving as his profession with such disability, therefore, according to the petitioner-claimant the present is a case of total loss of earnings.
(3.) Analyzing the rival submissions with the help of evidence available on record admittedly the petitioner was deployed as driver with ill fated bus by first respondent. The petitioner has successfully pleaded and proved his salary to be Rs. 4500/- per month. His age at the time of accident, however, was not 35 and rather he was +43 years at that time because in disability certificate issued on 4.5.2006 his age has been mentioned as 45 years, meaning thereby that he was 43 years of age at the time of accident. At the time of accident i.e. 3.1.2005 Act No. 46 of 2000 was in force being made operational on and w.e.f. 8.12.2000.