Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimant Giriraj Saini who sustained disability in a motor accident, which was assessed at 11.45%. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was engaged in the work of decoration by flowering etc. and that his monthly income should be accepted as Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has illegally accepted his income notionally at Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that documents Ex.64, 65 and 66 were produced, which have been wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal by observing that they were written in the same hand writing with same pen. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that kind of injury which the appellant has suffered reduced his physical earning capacity permanently and he would not be able to sit cross legs and squat. In the circumstances, award of Rs.1,87,135/- on various heads cannot be justified. Learned counsel submitted that claimant had undergone two surgeries for which amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering also cannot be justified. 4. It is argued that one evidence of the appellant was sufficient to prove the nature of work and the income that he was gaining therefrom. Multiplying number of witnesses by itself would not be a reason to discard the testimony of the appellant, which his otherwise reliable. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the material on record, I find that the Tribunal in his finding on issue No.4 in para 13 and 14 has held that appellant has not produced any evidence whatsoever as to how and in what manner he used to get the regular work of flowering/decoration. No bank statement has been produced, nor was he able to show that whether he is paying the income tax, nor any statement of his income is given. He has not even named any single party by which he was awarded work of decoration, nor he could give the name of the tent house etc. On cross examination he admitted that his firm was not registered. Ex.64, 65 and 66 were disbelieved because they were in the same handwriting even then the Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. On cross examination he admitted that his firm was not registered. Ex.64, 65 and 66 were disbelieved because they were in the same handwriting even then the Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. For this nature of claim petition, where already a sum of Rs.1,87,135/- with interest has been awarded, I do not deem it necessary to make any interference with the award. The appeal is therefore dismissed.