The loss of earning capacity should be determined by reference to all the work which the claimant was able to perform at the time of the accident. The award of compensation for pain and suffering should be based on the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization.

( 1 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims tribunal, Udupi, has allowed M. V. C. No. 751 of 1992 in pan and awarded a sum of rs. 2,11,578 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum towards compensation for the injuries sustained by claimant in a road accident. The claimant has appealed in this court for a suitable enhancement of the said amount.

( 2 ) THE claimant was on 21. 8. 1991 driving the lorry from Udupi on his way to belthangady. When he reached a place near Udyavara forest gate, a tanker bearing registration No. KA 14-2070 coming from Katapady side dashed against the lorry, in the process causing injuries to the claimant. The injured was removed to the kmc Hospital at Manipal where he remained under treatment for a few months. In due course, he filed M. V. C. No. 751 of 1992 before the Tribunal for payment of compensation. His case in the claim petition was that the accident in question had taken place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver, thereby entitling him to payment of compensation insurance company with which the offending tanker was insured opposed the claim on several grounds giving rise to as many as 8 issues. Appreciation of the evidence adduced in support of their cases by the parties, led the Tribunal to answer the issues in favour of the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had indeed taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver. It further held that claimant had remained admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient from 21. 8. 1991 to 13. 1. 1992 and spent a sum of Rs. 1,01,253 on medical treatment. Apart from awarding the said amount, the Tribunal found the claimant entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,700 towards attendant charges and Rs. 23,675 towards nourishment, etc. The Tribunal added to that amount a sum of Rs. 2,750 towards conveyance charges; Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 61,200 for loss of future income, thereby taking total compensation to Rs. 2,11,578 which has been made payable with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as noticed earlier.

( 3 ) THE insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and award. It has on the contrary, satisfied the award by depositing the amount before the Tribunal. We are not under the circumstances called upon to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the genesis of the accident.

( 4 ) THE only question that was urged before us by Mr. Nataraj, counsel appearing for the appellant, related to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. A twofold submission was made by learned counsel in that regard. In the first place he submitted that the Tribunal was in error in awarding a sum of Rs. 61,200 only, towards loss of future income by treating the loss of earning capacity consequent upon the physical disability suffered by the claimant to be 25 per cent only. He urged that the claimant being a driver by profession who is after the accident and the disability unable to drive any vehicle, the loss of earning capacity should have been taken to be 100 per cent and a suitable amount on that basis calculated and awarded in his favour. Secondly, he submitted that the award of Rs. 5,000 only, towards compensation for pain and suffering was inadequate having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of hospitalisation.

( 5 ) ON behalf of respondent insurance company it was on the other hand, argued that the loss of future income could not be determined by reference to the vocation of the injured. The loss had to be determined by reference to all the work that the claimant could do. Such a loss could therefore, be related only to the extent of disability sustained by claimant regardless whether the said disability would disable claimant from doing the work which he was doing before the accident. Insofar as the award of compen