JUDGMENT :

1. This instant appeal arises from the judgment and decree/award dated on 22.2.2019, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/13th Additional District Judge, Aligarh in M.A.C.P. No.731 of 2014 (Vishnu vs. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. and others).

I. Facts of the Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the claimants-respondents before the learned tribunal was that the claimant-respondent was injured in an accident on 26.8.2014 which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of offending driver of Bolero Jeep No. U.P. 81-X/0168. Apart from grievous injuries the respondent-claimant also sustained a permanent disability in the accident. Among losses suffered by the claimants-respondents were recurring a huge loss of income caused by the permanent disability. The Insurance-company resisted the claim of the respondent-claimant before the learned tribunal by filing pleadings.

3. Both parties adduced evidence before the learned tribunal. The learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the respondents-claimants which is depicted in a tabulated form hereinunder :-

II. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties:

4. Shri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submits that though various grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal, only two grounds are being pressed. Firstly, it was a case of contributory negligence which the learned tribunal failed to consider negligence. Secondly, the loss of income awarded to the respondent-claimant was excessive and cannot be justified from the evidence.

5. Shri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants raised an oral objection and submits that the future prospects were liable to be added to the compensation which was awarded. The learned tribunal by neglecting to do so has failed to award a just compensation and has also acted in teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar, 2020 0 AIR (SC) 4424.

6. He further contends that this Court can correct the award even in the absence of cross appeal in case it is not consistent with the long held standards of grant of compensation awarded by settled judicial authorities. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in APSRTC represented by its General Manager vs. M. Ramadevi and others, 2008 (3) SCC 379 and Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager vs. Sumitra and others, 2018 (2) ACC 826.

7. After some arguments, learned counsel for the parties jointly contend that the following issues fall for consideration in this appeal :-

"(a). Whether the accident in which the injured sustained injuries was a result of contributory negligence for which the Insurance Company alone cannot be held liable ?

(b) Whether loss of income as determined by the learned tribunal was excessive ?

(c) Whether the appellant can raise oral cross-objections at the stage of appeal ?

(d) Whether the future prospects are liable to be computed while granting just compensation to the appellants ?"

III. Issue of contributory negligence:

8. The claimant-respondent appea