pecuniary benefits as a result of the injury sustained in the accident and especially when contra evidence is available to the effect that he had received the entire pecuniary benefits as usual, there would not be any justification for granting compensation under the head `loss of earnings and partial loss of earnings'. Evidently, the basis for the granting of 90,000/-, as is obvious from the award, is that the₹ Tribunal was of the view that the respondent/claimant had suffered a total temporary earning disability for three months. In the said context, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that no disability certificate was produced by the respondent/claimant. A perusal of the appendix to the award would justify the said submission. Evidently, no disability certificate has been produced by the respondent/claimant. In such circumstances, we are at a loss to understand the reasoning behind the conclusion that the respondent/claimant suffered a total temporary earning disability for three months for the purpose of granting 90,000/- under the aforesaid head. It is therefore only₹ proper to say that there was absolutely no justification for the Tribunal to hold that the respondent/claimant had suffered a total temporary earning disability for three months and then to award the aforesaid amount. In short, in the light of the position thus obtained from the discussion of the evidence in the award, we are of the considered view
