The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for the grant of compensation in the case of injury, including the consideration of loss of earning capacity, loss of promotional avenues, and additional amounts for future prospect, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.

SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri P. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company and Sri Alok Mishra holding brief of Sri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation.

2. The claimant-appellant preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Judge/Anti Corruption), Meerut whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- along-with 9% interest as compensation to the appellant.

3. The present appeal is confined to the appellant no. 1 only, even though the appellant no. 2 has joined as a party.

4. The appellant instituted a claim petition praying for a compensation of Rs. 21,85,000/- along with 18 % interest per annum for the injuries alleged to have been suffered by him in an accident on 04.04.1997 by bus no. U. P. 15-C 8908. The appellants pleaded that he had suffered grievous injuries and his left leg got crushed in the accident. He had undergone treatment for sufficiently long time. He had become permanently disable due to the injuries. The appellant was Collection Amin in the Revenue Department at Tehsil Meerut and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, his revenue collection had gone down, due to which he was under suspension, and ultimately he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement as he was not able to discharge his duties properly.

5. The insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing written statement. It denied its liability to pay any compensation, and further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant/appellant is highly excessive and exorbitant.

6. The U. P. S. R. T. C. contested the claim petition by filing written statement; it denied its liability to pay any compensation. It pleaded that the bus was being plied by it under an agreement with the owner of the bus. The bus was insured with the United India Assurance Company, and therefore, the liability, if any, to pay compensation is of the United India Insurance Company.

7. The owner of the bus did not file any written statement. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte against him.

8. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings between the parties framed several issues. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding on issue no. 4 regarding quantification of compensation.

9. The Tribunal held that the injuries suffered by the claimant were of a serious nature and awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation with 9% interest.

10. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the quantification of compensation, the counsel for the appellant has urged that the Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 4 regarding quantification of compensation has completely given go by to the settled principle of law in awarding compensation in case of fatal injuries. He submits that in the case of injury, the compensation is to be awarded under the heads namely pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. He further urges that the claimant was Collection Amin and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, and the claimant had to seek voluntary retirement on account of injuries suffered by him. Thus, there is total loss of earning due to injuries suffered by him. He further submits that the appellant was not granted increment and was denied the promotion; therefore, the appellant is entitled for future prospect. He has further submitted that the appellant is entitled for expenses incurred in the medical treatment, special diet and transportation and pain and suffering. In respect of this submission, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 1 TAC 711.

11. The counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the claimant was aged about 37 years at the time of accident, and therefore, the compensation should be computed b