UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJEEV MOSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point that is involved in this case is, whether the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1,95,488 for the following injuries:

(2.) THE submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even taking the grant in respect of the injuries as such, the grant of loss of income for the person on the date of accident being 48 years, at Rs. 1,69,488 is certainly not a reasonable one. According to him, the claimant was working as Industrial Promotion officer in 1993 when the accident took place. Subsequently, he continued to be in employment enjoying all the benefits of promotion, increment, salary, etc. and absolutely there was no reduction or loss of income at all. A person who has not suffered any loss of income is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of income and the Tribunal has wrongly applied this head without having any nexus to the injuries concerned. The injuries being on hip and face can never stand in the way of the appellant from discharging the duties as an officer.

(3.) IT is also significant according to him to point out that there is no iota of the evidence given by the appellant as to how he has lost his income. It is also submitted that though the accident took place in 1993, subsequently he was promoted as assistant Director. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that under column No. 28a of the petition, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 is claimed as compensation towards loss of earning power. So the Tribunal ought to have considered whether there was loss of earning power and should not have jumped upon the mere calculation and applying some multiplier. In the absence of any evidence regarding loss of earning power which was not even spoken to by any other witnesses, the Tribunal cannot embark upon a suo motu inquiry and go to the extent of awarding something which is not asked for. Though in the petition, an averment has been made that he was working as an Industrial Promotion Officer which designation is very important in his department and not the petitioner is unable to carry out his official duties effectively (this was struck off and not pressed ). On the other hand, it was elicited when he was in the box that he was promoted as Assistant Director in the same department. The learned counsel also relied upon the views expressed by this court and the other Bench to see the justness, equity and fairness of the compensation. On the other hand, Mr. Nataraju appearing for the respondent contended that in the light of the dictum of Supreme Court in the case of Chinnama George v. N. K. Raju, 2000 acj 777 (SC), the appeal is not competent. In fact, in that case, the court referred to the judgment of Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa, 1998 ACJ 244 (SC), wherein it is held that