The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation, including provision for future treatment expenses and consideration of future earnings based on profession prospects and earning capacity.

T.B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This appeal is by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimant, a practising advocate, who deposed that he was then earning around Rs. 6,000/- per month, was injured as a result of a motor accident when a tempo trax driven by the first respondent knocked down the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding through a public road on 08/09/2001. The claimant testified as PW1 and tendered documentary evidence as Exts. A1 to A22. Ext. X1 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, evidenced that the claimant's permanent disability is 27%. No contra evidence was tendered by either among the respondents. The Tribunal held that the first respondent was negligent. It did not find any contributory negligence on the claimant. The claimant was awarded a total amount of Rs. 3,70,416/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.

2. When this appeal came up for consideration for admission on 10/01/2008, it was minuted as follows:

"Admit only regarding the question of reimbursement of medical bills. Issue notice. Records are called for".

3. Pending the appeal, claimant filed IA No. 1639 of 2012 seeking admission of additional evidence, which are four bills/receipts towards treatment, issued after the Tribunal passed the award on 11/05/2007.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate as against the total compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs claimed. Reference was made to the entire documentary evidence and the testimony of PW 1, as also Ext. X1 certificate of permanent disability. Making reference to the precedent in Velunni v. Vellakutty , 1989 KHC 396: 1989 (2) KLT 227 : 1989 (2) KLJ 217: ILR 1990 (1) Ker. 254:1989 (1) KLN 402, it was argued that, sitting in appeal, this Court is empowered to pass such order or award, as the case may require and this power, insofar as it relates to appeals against awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, calls to be exercised in the light of the ratio of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh , 2003 KHC 15: AIR 2003 SC 674:2003 (1)KLT 115: (2003) 2 SCC 274:2002 AIR SCW 5345 laying down, inter alia, that the award need not be limited to amounts specified in the claim petition and the only embargo is that what should be awarded should be "Just" compensation and that there is no other limitation or restriction on the Tribunal's power to award just compensation. In support of the application seeking admission of additional evidence, it was argued that the documents sought to be admitted in evidence were not available with the claimant when the matter was pending before the Tribunal since they were issued only after the trial concluded and also relate to periods of treatment undergone by the claimant from year to year even after the decision of the Tribunal was rendered. It is pointed out that the documents sought to be admitted in evidence are those which would clearly show that as a result of the accident, the claimant has to undergo periodical recurring treatment for continuing the rehabilitation procedure which is required as a direct consequence of the injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident. Faced with the aforequoted order minuted on 10/01/2008 at the stage of admission, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sekharan v. Meenakshi , 1965 KHC 246 : 1965 KLT 940 : 1965 KLJ 731: ILR 1965 (2) Ker. 368 : 1965 (2) KLR 165 and argued that in this Court there is no general practice of admitting appeals in part or only on some of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and that it is clear from Rules 11 and 12 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure that an appeal has to be admitted or dismissed under Rule 11 or Rule 12 only as a whole and not in parts.

5. Per contra, the learned counse