JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
1. The claimant suffered injuries in an accident caused on 25-4-71, when Truck No. DLG 4127 hit the appellant’s car No. DLJ 7597. The injuries are fully described in the Award and need not be restated. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 2.25 lakhs towards compensation while the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 22,100/-. Hence, this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2. The principal ground of challenge in this appeal that the Tribunal has not appreciated and considered the loss of service and earning capacity due to the injuries suffered by the appellant. His further plea is that the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that his services were terminated because of the injuries suffered by him, but because the company in which he was working, viz. Chemoleum Corporation had stopped its business in India. I have been taken through the evidence of PW/5, Shri K.S. Venkataramni, who was a stenographer in the office in which the appellant was working as well as his own evidence as PW/12. I find that the appreciation of this evidence by the Tribunal and the finding recorded by it is correct and justified on the evidence. The appellant has failed to show as to how the finding is unreasonable or perverse.
3. From February 1971 the main business of the firm of supplying imported fertilizers to the Government of India was stopped and by November 1971 the business was wound up. Not only the services of the appellant, but the services of the other members of the staff were also terminated.
4. The appellant was 59 years old at the time of accident and had already retired from his earlier service. If he had lost the job in Chemoleum Corporation it was not because of the incapacity caused by the injuries and there is no other evidence to show that because of the injuries suffered by him he was unable to secure another job elsewhere. The submission is, therefore, rejected. Another submission of the appellant is, that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 10,000/- towards general damages. Besides, merely stating that the damages ought to have been to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs the appellant has not demonstrated as to how the Tribunal has erred in fixing the said amount towards general damages. No infirmity in the reasoning of the Tribunal has been brought on record. The said submissions are also, therefore, rejected.
5. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.