UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P UMAIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 31. 12. 2002, made in O. P. No. 409 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs. 7,48,443/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the petition to till the date of payment of compensation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said Order, the appellant/united India Insurance Co. , Ltd. , has filed the above appeal praying for setting aside the order. It has been contended by the appellant that even according to PW2, OCU list, the first respondent has problem only in the right eye and has not lost the eye completely and as such the Tribunal has erred in relying on the assessment of PW2 to hold 100% disability, in spite of the fact that as per W. C. Schedule, the disability to be fixed for loss of vision in one eye is only 30%. It has also been contended that the Tribunal has erred in granting a huge sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards loss of earning power in spite of the fact that the first respondent received a salary of Rs. 10,50,000/- per annum for the year ending 31. 03. 2002 as per Ex. P15. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in granting Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability relying on the incorrect assessment of 100% and as such the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has sought reconsideration of the excessive award granted to the claimant.

(3.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: on 25. 03. 1997, at about 8. 30 a. m. , the petitioner was travelling in a Contessa Classic Car, bearing registration No. TN27 4456, belonging to the first respondent and that when the car was nearing Manoj Kumar Spinning Mills in Salem to Namakkal main road, the driver of the Car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Parapet Wall. Due to this, the petitioner sustained grievous multiple injuries and was admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem-4. Her vision in the right eye is completely damaged. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 47 years. She was hale and healthy and was the Director in many spinning mills and was in charge in selecting cotton to these mills. Now, after the accident she is not able to work as earlier. The first respondent, the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The injured claimant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents.