VIJAYALAKSHMY Vs. A.N.RANJITH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 236/2002 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, is the appellant herein. She filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,84,000/ - on various heads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1477_TLKER0_2013.htm</FRM> Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court seeking enhancement.

(2.) EARLIER , when the case was sent for settlement in Lok Adalath, on he basis of the request made before the Lok Adalath, she was referred to a medical board and the medical board assessed her neurological disability as 60% and sent the disability certificate to that extent, which is made part of this record.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a tuition teacher getting Rs. 3,000/ - per month at the time of the accident. But the Tribunal has arbitrarily fixed the monthly income as Rs. 1,500/ -, which is palpably low. Further, after the accident, she became permanently disabled due to neurological deficit and she is unable to do any work and she cannot live without support of another person and thereby she has been completely disabled from earning anything. But, the Tribunal has taken only 30% disability for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head 'loss of earning capacity' which is very low, considering the disability suffered. Now that the medical board has assessed her disability as 60% and the nature of disabilities described in the disability certificate will further show that the appellant is 100% disabled from doing any work. So, the amounts of compensation awarded under the heads 'loss of earing capacity and loss of amenities in life' are on the lower side. So, according to counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heads.