9.In fact, a perusal of the award of the Tribunal does not show that it has come to a definite conclusion that the injury had affected the earning power of the claimant. The Tribunal has gone on to adopt the multiplier method without rendering a clear finding regarding the loss of earning power. Multiplier method in an injury case could be adopted only when there is evidence of loss of earning power. The percentage of injury does not have a direct relation to the loss of earning power in many cases. In the case on hand, the injury is fracture of both bones of the leg namely, the tibia and fibula. From the report of the medical board, it is seen that there is no problem in the movement of the right knees. Of course, there is a slight weakening of the muscle strength which may not have a lasting impact considering the age of the claimant. There is also no evidence of any further treatment being required. The discharge summary also does not suggest any further treatment and therefore I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in applying the multiplier method in order to fix the compensation for loss of earning power. The award on the other heads also namely, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and extra nourishment are definitely on the higher side. The claimant has been admitted as an inpatient for six days. Of course, the injury being a fracture of both the bones in the right leg, the claimant would have undergone pain for reasonably long time. The compensation for loss of amenities is not resorted to normally in a case of minor injuries. However, the Tribunal has chosen to award a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards loss of amenities and award of Rs.60,000/- for extra nourishment is without any basis.
