NASIB KAUR Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10038 -CII of 2004

(2.) THE submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the income was taken on the lower side and lump sum amount was awarded for permanent disability which was 60% and the amount be increased. It was urged that the claimant had remained in the hospital for about 15 days and there was loss of income for the period she could not work and the claimant was entitled for compensation for the economic loss. It was urged that no amount for loss of future amenities and discomfort has been allowed. Reliance was placed upon Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others, 2012 ACJ 583, G. Dhanasekar Vs. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, 2014 1 RCR(Civ) 993 and Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, 2011 ACJ 2436.

(3.) SUPPORTING the judgment, the counsel for the respondent no.3 -insurance company had urged that claimant was 60 years old when she met with an accident and the plea was that she was running a dairy and was earning Rs.5,000/ - per month but as no evidence was led, the Tribunal had taken the annual income at Rs.15,000/ - and had allowed Rs.60,000/ - for the disability and had awarded adequate compensation which by no means was less compared to the income of the year 1997. It was urged that there was no amputation and the disability assessed by the Medical Officer was of the one limb and the functional disability would have been much lesser.