BHASKAR RAO Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the owner, driver of the lorry and the insurance company who were respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the Tribunal. Respondent herein is the petitioner-claimant who filed a claim petition on account of the injury sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 20. 7. 92 at about 12. 30 noon near the railway overbridge on Jewargi Road, Gulbarga. The claimant was aged about 28 years and that he was a Sales Officer at Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and was looking after the area covering Bidar, Bellary, Gulbarga and Raichur and was drawing the salary of rs. 4,500 per month. In the said accident, the claimant had sustained the following injuries:

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contend that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation on the basis of normal procedure which is being followed by all the courts. According to him, there is no provision to award compensation of rs. 6,48,000 towards future loss of income, calculating the loss of income based on the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant even though the appellant is drawing more salary and continue to work in the same job. He contends that the Tribunal should have assessed the compensation under different heads like 'injury, pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities in life', 'loss of future prospects in life', 'the medical expenses' incurred by the claimant and conveyance, nourishment and attendant's charges and other heads. According to him, tribunal without following the procedure as laid down by this court and the Apex court, has awarded compensation in its own way. Therefore, the entire calculation awarded by the Tribunal has to be modified and re-assessed properly in accordance with law. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Visweswara contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads requires to be confirmed. He further contends that the appeal filed by the appellants is not maintainable. He contends that the owner of the lorry had not contested the petition before the Tribunal. Therefore, appeal filed by the insurance company along with the owner before this court is not maintainable. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants contend that the owner as well as the insurance company have together contested the case before the Tribunal and, therefore, the submission of the respondent's counsel has to be rejected in toto.