awarded, par(cid:9)cularly for loss of future earnings due to permanent disability, is wholly inadequate and contrary to setiled principles of law.

4. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company at the (cid:9)me of hearing.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has carefully examined the record.

6. Contributory Negligence: The Claimant’s version is that while he was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter No.HR-14-0438, driven by his cousin Jai Bhagwan, the offending Maru(cid:9) car, driven rashly and negligentl, collided with the scooter near village Sankhol, resul(cid:9)ng in serious injuries to him.

7. The Insurance Company relied upon DDR No.19 dated 08.09.1992 (Ex. PF), recorded on the statement of Jai Bhagwan, the scooter driver himself, wherein it was stated that a cow suddenly crossed the road and, in an atiempt to save the animal, the scooter struck against the car. It was clearly recorded that the accident did not occur due to the fault of the car driver.

8. The claimant appeared as PW-2 and denied this version but admitied that Jai Bhagwan was his first cousin and that rela(cid:9)ons between them were cord