(1.) Mr.Manav A. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. The name of Mr.A.P. Medh appears for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, but there is no representation. The respondent No.3 served, but is unrepresented.
(2.) The records do not show that any Cross-Appeal or Cross-Objection has been filed either by the owner, driver or Insurance Company. In such a case, in absence of any challenge the the liability / responsibility of the driver, owner and Insurance Company, the Court will have to hold that the claimant has proved that he suffered injuries in the accident.
(3.) Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal even in absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence of the claimant, just on surmises and conjectures observed that the yearly income of the appellant / claimant would be Rs.4000=00 and as he has suffered 25% disability, he would be entitled to Rs.1000=00 per year towards future loss of earning and consequently, he would be entitled to Rs.15000=00 only. He also submits that the tribunal was absolutely unjustified in holding that despite the fracture of both the legs and deformity in the body, the claimant would not find difficulty in carrying out his agricultural operations. He also submits that the tribunal was unjustified in awarding compensation treating yearly income at Rs.4000=00, when the evidence on the record clearly establishes that the income of the claimant could not be less than Rs.7000=00 per year.