- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2. Though notice was served on respondent No, 1, he has not chosen to appear.
(2.) THE appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant who was injured in an accident which took place on 12.9.1994 involving the vehicle (Truck No. B.I.N. 8284) belonging to respondent No. 1. According to the claimant, as a result of this accident, the claimant appellant suffered partial disability owing, to the shortening of one of his legs. He had incurred substantial expenses for his treatment and he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,89,000/ -. The claim of the appellant was opposed by the insurance company before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/ - for injuries suffered by the claimant, a further sum of 28,728/ - as medical expenses and Rs. 5000/ - for pain and agony, thus awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,03,748/ - with interest thereon. Being dissatisfied with the award, the claimant has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant was aged 22 years when he met with the accident, and that he was earning rupees five thousand per month as found by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal erred in awarding rupees seventy thousand only on the basis of the loss of income of the appellant for a period of fourteen months. The learned counsel submitted that the medical expenses of Rs. 28,748/ - allowed was too low. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the compensation awarded was more than adequate. He submitted further that there was no legal evidence on the monthly income of the claimant and the Tribunal has, in fact, indulged in surmises in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at rupees five thousand. The learned counsel submitted that no interference is called for and the medical expenses has been awarded on the basis of the receipts produced by the claimant and in the absence of any other evidence, there is no reason to interfere with the amount awarded.
(3.) WE find that the Tribunal has not properly considered the claim of the appellant for compensation. The Tribunal should have considered the claim of the appellant under different heads permissible in law. We feel that the Tribunal was also not justified in simply accepting Rs. 5,000/ - as the monthly income of the appellant. The burden is on the appellant to prove his actual monthly income based on legal evidence. The Tribunal should have looked for proper and adequate evidence in support of the income of the claimant. On the whole, we think that the award of the Tribunal is not satisfactory. The Tribunal has not considered properly the claim of the claimant for compensation. The claim of partial disability should also have been properly looked into. Tribunal should have considered whether there has been any loss of prospect and if so whether any compensation is payable under that head. But we find no justification in interfering with the amount awarded towards medical expenses.;