EUFEMIA DE SOUZA Vs. INDRABAHADUR VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the original claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 11/12/2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao ("the Tribunal" for the short) by which the learned Presiding Officer secured her partly with the compensation and without appreciating her case in its proper context. The respondents are the original respondents before the tribunal and all of whom would be referred to in their original status for the brevity's sake hereinafter. It needs reckoning that no separate appeal or cross appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 in particular challenging the award and therefore the limited scope of challenge in this appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Presiding Officer.

(2.) Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellant who adverted to the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the learned Tribunal had not given due weightage to the fact that the claimant was running a bar apart from doing agricultural work and therefore failed in appreciating the income of the applicant and ultimately to award lower compensation to her. The learned Tribunal had also not given due consideration to the extent of loss of income and/or that under the head of permanent disability and therefore was entitled to a reversal of the award to the limited extent of the quantum. He relied in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 1 SCC 343 and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 4 AllMR 429 in the matter of applicability of the multiplier.

(3.) Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 contended that there was no functional disability while adverting to the cross-examination of the Orthopaedic Surgeon and that the amount awarded to her of Rs. 60,000/- would cover her short comings. Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Advocate in reply adverted to the evidence of his witnesses and submitted that even assuming without admitting that she had not suffered permanent partial disability, she was still entitled to the compensation claimed in the petition.