ORDER M.A.C.A. Nos.346, 495 and 462 of 2004 25.10.2006 - All the three appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 15th May, 2004 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Ist M.A.C.T. Cuttack in Misc. Case No.835 of 1998 directing that payment of compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- be equal¬ly shared by both the Insurance Companies along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. M.A.C.A. No.346 of 2004 has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award whereas M.A.C.A. No.495 of 2004 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the said award. The claimant has filed M.A.C.A. No.462 of 2004 praying for en¬hancement of compensation. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 23.7.1998, at about 5 P.M., while he was going from Niali to his village Athantara in a trekker bearing registration No.OR-05A-3813, near Niali Block Office, a tractor bearing registration No.OR-05-1930 attached with trailer came from the opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the trekker. The accident took place on the middle of the road and it is the case of the claimant that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent in driving the vehicles.It is also the case of the claimant that he sustained multiple fractures on his right leg knee with other bleeding injuries all over his body and was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack where he was admitted as an indoor patient. He, thereafter, took admission in the General Nursing Home, Mangalabag, Cuttack for further treatment. The claimant claims to have spent Rs.50,000/- towards treatment till the date of filing of application. According to him, because of the injuries sustained in course of accident, he has lost his job. The claimant further claimed that he was earning Rs.18,548/- per month and was contributing Rs.15,000/- to his family per month. Accordingly he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The owners of both the vehicles did not contest the case and were set ex parte. However, both the Insurance Companies contested the case by filing separate written statements. The claimant further claimed that he was earning Rs.18,548/- per month and was contributing Rs.15,000/- to his family per month. Accordingly he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The owners of both the vehicles did not contest the case and were set ex parte. However, both the Insurance Companies contested the case by filing separate written statements. The allegations made in the claim petition were denied and it was stated on behalf of the United India Insurance Company Ltd that the trekker bearing registration OR-05A-3813 had been registered as a passenger vehicle with sitting capacity of 9+1. It was also stated that the driver of the said trekker was not authorised to drive the passenger carrying vehicle and, accordingly there being violation of policy condition, the said Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. The New India Assurance Company Limited in its written statement also denied the allega¬tions made in the claim petition. The case of the said Insurance Company is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.OR-05-1930 and, according¬ly, it is not liable for payment of any compensation. 4. On pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues and with reference to the evidence available on record held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and each one of them equally contributed to the accident. The Tribunal also found that in course of such accident, the claimant sus¬tained injuries and the vehicles being duly insured, and compen¬sation payable to the claimant, has to be equally shared by both the Insurance Companies. 5. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of future income and 7,800/- towards medicines, Rs.12,930/- towards Nursing home charges and Rs.1,00,000/- towards injury, pain, suffering and mental agony and accordingly directed for payment of compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-. 6. Shri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited and learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Limited challenged the order of the Tribunal basically on the question of quantum of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for both the In¬surance Companies submitted that the nature of injuries are such that such high compensation is unwarranted. Shri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited and learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Limited challenged the order of the Tribunal basically on the question of quantum of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for both the In¬surance Companies submitted that the nature of injuries are such that such high compensation is unwarranted. From the claim peti¬tion, it appears that the age of the claimant was mentioned as 53 years whereas in deposition, he stated to be 55 years of age at the time of accident. Ext.11 is the document, which reflects that the date of birth of the claimant was in 1944 and considering such materials, the Tribunal held that the claimant was aged 53 years at the time of accident. The learned counsel appearing for the parties did not dispute this finding of the Tribunal with regard to the age. The claimant in his claim petition claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.18,548/- per month as he was working in the Shipping Corporation of India Limited. It was stated by the claimant in the evidence that he has received a sum of Rs.1,53,336/- towards his remuneration for the work done within the period of eight months and eight days. According to the claimant, he was being engaged for such work every year by the Shipping Corporation of India. The document produced from the Office of the Shipping Corporation of India also shows that the claimant, for his work of eight months eight days, was being paid a sum of Rs.17,039/- per month after all deductions. From the Orthopaedically Handicapped Certificate, Ext.10, it reveals that the claimant has been disabled because of post traumatic flexion deformity of right knee associated with stiffness and he is unable to walk. On consideration of all the materials, the Trib¬unal found that the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of future income. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies submitted that the document obtained from the Shipping Corporation of India clearly shows that the claimant was working on contract basis and his employment was purely on contract basis with a condition “no work no pay”. 8. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies submitted that the document obtained from the Shipping Corporation of India clearly shows that the claimant was working on contract basis and his employment was purely on contract basis with a condition “no work no pay”. 8. Admittedly, as contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies, the claimant was not being employed throughout the year and except one year, there is no document to show that the claimant was being engaged for eight months in a year.The learned counsel also submitted that the claimant was being engaged on contract basis and, therefore there cannot be any guarantee that he would have got employment every year for about eight months. Referring to the nature of injuries sustained, the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies also contended that claimant may be unfit to do the work, which he was doing, but there is no material to show that there is total loss of earning capacity. With the injury sustained, the claimant can take up any other avocation for earning. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was earning Rs.18,548/- per month and would have served for at least seven more years under the Ship¬ping Corporation of India. Therefore, the future loss of income will be much more than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. From the evidence available on record and document referred to in the impugned judgment, I find that the claimant was working on contract basis under the Shipping Corporation of India. The docu¬ment showing engagement of one year, which have been referred to by the Tribunal, indicate that for that year the claimant worked for eight months and eight days and average income of the clai¬mant for the year was Rs.17,039/- per month. Since the claimant was 53 years of age, he could have produced further documents to show that in earlier years also he was being employed for eight months in a year and was receiving the same salary. Apart from the above, it appears that for the injuries, which the claimant has sustained, definitely he is unable to work under the Shipping Corporation of India but it cannot be said that he is unable to do any other work. 9. Apart from the above, it appears that for the injuries, which the claimant has sustained, definitely he is unable to work under the Shipping Corporation of India but it cannot be said that he is unable to do any other work. 9. It further appears from the impugned judgment that after discussing about the income of the claimant and nature of injuries sustained, the Tribunal has suddenly jumped to a conclu¬sion that compensation for loss of future income should be as¬sessed at Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal has not said anything as to the basis on which such assessment has been made. If the nature of injuries as well as the nature of employment of the claimant are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the loss of future income could be less than what the Tribunal has found. 10. So far as expenses are concerned, the same having been supported by documents, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding. The other part of the compensation of Rs,1,00,000/- towards injury, pain, suffering and mental agony is concerned, undisputedly, the claimant had suffered injuries and had been treated in the Hospital as well as Nursing home for a considera¬ble length of time. On this count also I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded. However, having found that the assessment of future income has not been correctly made, I am inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand). I, accordingly, allow the two appeals filed by the Insurance Companies in part and direct that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as directed by the Tribunal.The order of the Tribun¬al stands modified to the above extent. It is also directed that both the Insurance Companies shall equally share the compensa¬tion. 11. In view of the above finding, M.A.C.A. No.462 of 2004 filed by the claimant for enhancement is dismissed. It appears that in both the appeals filed by the Insurance Companies statu¬tory deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) has been made. It is, therefore, directed that the said statutory deposit with accrued interest thereon be refunded to the In¬surance Companies respectively and the total compensation amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Order accordingly.