(U.V. Bakre, J.)

1.This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Award dated 30.6.2007 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (“Tribunal”, for short), in Claim Petition No. 321/2003/II, whereby the said claim petition has been partly allowed.

2. The appellant had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) thereby claiming total compensation of Rs.12.00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicular accident, which injuries resulted into permanent disability.

3. Facts of the case are as follows:

On 16.5.2003, at about 17.30 hours, the claimant was standing on the left hand side of the road at Devenbag Tarir, Canacona, Goa, when the respondent no. 2 drove his tanker bearing registration no. GDS-5523 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant, due to which she fell down and the wheels of the tanker ran over her feet. The claimant sustained injuries to both her legs in the form of crush injuries to the left and right feet with separation of sole, which resulted into a permanent disability of 30%, involving both the lower limbs.

4. The respondents no. 1 and 3 filed their written statement, before the Tribunal.

5. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record the Tribunal held that the respondent no. 2 was rash & negligent in driving the said tanker and that the wheels of the said tanker ran over her feet resulting in crush injuries & permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,17,880/- (Rupees One lakh seventeen thousand eight hundred eighty only) to the claimant. Since the claimant had already received Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) vide order dated 9.11.2004 under “No fault liability” the said amount was adjusted from the final compensation. The claimant has thus been awarded additional compensation of Rs.92,800/- under Section 166 of the M.V. Act along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 19.11.2003 till the entire amount is paid. The liability has been fastened, jointly and severally, on all the respondents.

6. The claimant has filed the present appeal. The respondents have not challenged the judgment and award.

7. The short point that arises for determination is as to what should be the fair and adequate compensation for permanent disability suffered by the claimant.

8. Mr. Anthony D'Silva, learned counsel on behalf of the claimant, submitted that the claimant was a fish vendor earning about Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per day and she has deposed to this effect. According to him, the Tribunal has wrongly held that notional income of the claimant should be considered as Rs.1250/- per month. He has relied upon “Nagarajappav. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”(AIR 2011 S.C. 1785), wherein the claimant was working as a coolie and had claimed to be earning Rs. 4500/- per month, but since the same was not supported by documentary evidence, the tribunal presumed his income to be Rs. 3000/- per month. He pointed out that the High Court also took the income of the said claimant as Rs. 3000/- per month and the Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained the income of the claimant at Rs. 3000/- per month. He, therefore, urged that in the present case also monthly income of the claimant should be taken as Rs. 3000/-. He took us through the evidence of Aw. 2, Dr. Yuri Dias Amborkar. In his cross-examination, Aw.2 has stated that the patient has still not recovered from the injuries and that he last attended the patient sometime in May of the year 2006. According to the learned counsel, therefore, since the accident had occurred in the year 2003, the actual loss of income should have been calculated for three years. It is also his submission that on account of permanent disability sustained by her, there is loss of amenities and the claimant who is a sp