Counsel's concessions do not bind parties if contrary to established legal principles; both loss of future earnings and permanent disability claims can coexist.

JUDGMENT

The order of this Court shall dispose of an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.(MV) No.843 of 2018 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara and the cross objection preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:-

The claimant while riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 22 B 3523 from Mangalore to Kasaragod met with an accident on 31.12.2015 near Posottu in Hosabiettu Village at 5.30 a.m. A lorry bearing Registration No.KA 21 A 6310 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Indiana Hospital, Mangalore and on the same day he was taken to Co-operative Hospital, Kozhikode. He was discharged on 15.1.2016 and even after discharge he continued on treatment. He was again admitted on 25.2.2016 and discharged on 29.2.2016. The respondent/claimant contended that he is a computer professional and an Engineering student and was earning an income of Rs.20,000/- at the time of accident. The Insurance company/appellant entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 21 A 6310 was validly insured. However, the insurance company seriously opposed the plea of the claimant that he was having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The quantum of compensation claimed under different heads were also seriously disputed.

3. On behalf of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the claimant.

4. No evidence was produced on the side of the insurance company. The Tribunal, based on the materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Claimant relied on Ext.A11 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board on 18.9.2018 for claiming compensation for permanent disability. Even though the Medical Board assessed 40% disability, the appellant disputed the same. According to the appellant going by Schedule I to Workman Compensation Act 1923, the disability can be only 14%. This was however conceded by the Counsel for the claimant and thus the tribunal proceeded to fix the disability at 14%. The quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal on various heads is extracted as follows:

5. Aggrieved by the fixation of compensation, the Insurance company has come up in appeal. The claimant has preferred the cross appeal aggrieved by the order of the tribunal scaling down the percentage of disability based on the concession given by the counsel.

6. Heard Sri George Cherian, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company and Sri.R. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant/cross objector.

7. Learned Senior counsel Sri George Cherian appearing for the insurance company contended that the tribunal despite fixing the disability of the claimant at 14% instead of 40%, granted the future prospects which is impermissible unde