and due to accident, his practice was hampered as he could not attend the Court for a period of one year. He further submits that in view of the nature of injuries sustained, he could not attend to his agricultural operations. During cross- examination, it has been elicited that the claimant has filed income tax returns and among them, Ex.A.93 is the income assessment order for the year 2003-2004, which was filed on 03.03.2005. In the said returns, the claimant declared his income as Rs.1,01,180/- on his profession as an Advocate, a sum of Rs.25,000/- on his agriculture and paid income tax of Rs.1,104/-. His evidence also discloses that he has maintained car for the last eight years. From the above, it is clear that the claimant was earning not less than Rs.1,25,000/- per year. The income on the profession can be less in one year and more in another year. But, one cannot say with exact precision the income of a lawyer. Whenever an Advocate fall sick or absent himself in attending the Court even for a temporary period, the clients would definitely go to other offices. The argument of the claimants on this aspect cannot be brushed aside. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, namely four fractures, for which he was operated in the hospital of PW.2, and the shortening of leg by one inch, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earnings during the said period as Rs.1,25,000/-, which is quite cogent and convincing.
