C.T. Selvam, J.

1. These civil miscellaneous appeals arise against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 98 of 2006 on 16.8.2011.

2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 736 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') is the insurer of the offending vehicle, while the appellant in C.M.A. No. 859 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') is the claimant.

3. At about 0800 hours on 12.12.2003, when the claimant tried to cross the road at Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TN 09-J 8643 hit the claimant due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant sought compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant examined two witnesses and 22 exhibits were marked. Respondent insurance company examined one witness and marked Exhs. R1 and R2.

5. The claimant suffered a comminuted fracture of lateral condyle of right tibia resulting in removal of a piece of bone leaving a dent in the tibial condyle articular surface. The joints were cracked and space between them was abnormal. As a result, the claimant suffered swelling of the knee, joint pain and found it difficult to stand and climb staircases. Holding that the disability suffered by the claimant would have an impact on his earning capacity, the Tribunal took the same to be 30 per cent as against the assessment of 40 per cent by PW 2, doctor, and relating such disability to the whole body held that the loss of earning capacity would be 10 per cent. Taking the monthly earnings of the claimant to be Rs. 21,000, it awarded compensation towards loss of earning capacity and further awarded compensation as follows :      

The said sum of Rs. 4,08,300 was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in taking the loss of earning capacity only to be 10 per cent. Since the claimant was an advocate, he would have to move from court to court and thus the injury suffered by him had rendered it inconvenient for him to move about. The injury suffered by the claimant resulted in constant swelling of the knee and joint pain which besides making it difficult for him to move also did not allow him to stand for long. In fact, the claimant had to wear a kneecap for stability of the right knee. Learned counsel would submit that the percentage of disability ought to have been placed much higher. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the contention of the claimant of earning a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not allowing any sum towards future medical expenses.

7. Learned counsel for insurer submitted that Tribunal was right in holding the disability suffered by the claimant at 10 per cent as against the disability assessed by PW 2, doctor, at 40 per cent. Learned counsel would submit that Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 21,000 taking the annual income mentioned by the claimant in the year 2003. He further submitted that the Tribunal was right in not awarding any sum towards future medical expenses. The claimant was an advocate of the insurance company and subsequent to the accident, the claimant had been entrusted with more cases resulting in higher earnings to him. Learned counsel