7.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that it is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that he was working as a Technician Grade-V, Hyundai Motors India Ltd, Chennai and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Though it is claimed by the claimant that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, Ex.P.10-salary slips would show that he was receiving only a sum of Rs.25,739/- as monthly salary. On the side of the Insurance Company, the Manager in Hyundai Motors India Ltd, Chennai was summoned and examined as R.W.1, through whom pay slip of the claimant for the month of May,2008 was marked as Ex.R.1. The evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 would show that the claimant was paid monthly gross salary of Rs.24,633/-. Further, R.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that from the monthly of July 2009, the claimant has rejoined his employment and he has been assigned non-manufacturing activities in the company. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.1 would clearly show that the claimant is still continuing his employment. But, the Tribunal has taken a higher sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly loss of income (ie., total of loss of income of Rs.5,000/- and loss of promotional income of Rs.5,000/-) which resulted in awarding an exorbitant sum of Rs.20,40,000/- under the head of loss of earning capacity. That apart, the Tribunal has separately awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under the head of permanent disability, which is not sustainable. Since the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity, it ought not to have separately awarded compensation under the head of permanent disability. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the
