M. LAKSHMI CHITRA Vs. RAHUL BHIKAJI BHUTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties, on this first appeal preferred by the original claimant challenging the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao.

(2.) THE injury claim by the appellant/claimant, then aged 38 years, unmarried, employed, stenographer by profession, is instituted for total compensation of 6 lakhs. The appellant/claimant suffered two fractures one on the right tibia and second on the right humerus in an accident on 04.03.2008. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1. The vehicle of respondent no. 1 during the relevant time was insured with the present respondent no. 2. When the appellant/claimant was crossing the road, she was given a dash by respondent no. 1 by Innova motor car which he was driving. So far as, rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no. 1 is concerned, there is no dispute on this aspect and the insurance company has objected on the quantum of compensation. In fact, the awarded amount is already paid to the appellant/claimant.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellant/claimant and it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 22,500/ - is required to be awarded as the actual bills towards travel were produced. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/ - as the bill amount. This Court has carefully gone through the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal on this aspect and considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering her need to attend her office which is at a distance of about 5 kms. from her residence, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 12,000/ - awarded by the Tribunal need not be altered. So far as, amount of Rs. 50,000/ - awarded towards 20% disability of the appellant, it is the submission on behalf of the claimant that the said amount awarded is much less and the Tribunal has not given any reasoning as to how amount of Rs. 50,000/ - has been arrived. On this aspect, learned Counsel for respondent -2 submitted that there is a distinction between physical disability and earning disability of the claimant and physical disability cannot be equated with the earning disability though at times they can be equated when the person is required to do physical work like a labour. The claimant in the present case is working as a stenographer and there is nothing on record that claimant is unable to work as stenographer after the accident due to the injury to the right hand. On this count, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs. 50,000 given towards the disability caused to the claimant need not be altered and it can be taken as just amount. So far as, amount of Rs. 20,000/ - towards future prospects of marriage again, there is no need to alter the said amount, still considering the age of the appellant/claimant and injury sustained by her mainly to the leg.