are at a complete loss to understand how the Tribunal could have refused to mark the same in evidence simply on the ground that it lacks essential particulars for assessing disability. After marking the document, if the Tribunal had said that because of the lack of essential particulars, the same cannot be relied upon, perhaps the Tribunal could not have been faulted. But, that too may not be correct because the said document specifically states about the fracture suffered by the appellant and because of that fracture his disability is assessed as 4%. Apart from the same, we find that the details of the treatment undergone by the appellant are available in the treatment book available in the file of the Tribunal. But, strangely, the Tribunal has, after holding that the wound certificate cannot be marked in evidence, actually marked the same in evidence as Ext.A2. From all these documents, it is evident that the appellant had, in fact, suffered fracture to both bones of his right leg. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to accept 4% as disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity. Of course, the appellant did not attain the age to earn income at the time of incident. We fix his notional income at Rs.2000/- per month. Calculated thus, the appellant would entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity of
