The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for motor accident injuries, considering medical expenses, loss of earnings, and disability percentage.

JUDGMENT

M S Jawalkar, J. - Present Appeal is filed by Insurance Company, respondent no. 2 in original Claim Petition No. 67/2009 against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2012 of the Claims Tribunal, Panaji, Goa.

2. The case of the claimant before the Claims Tribunal was as under:-

Claimant was 35 years old, in service as the Branch Manager of the Goa Branch of M/s Space Office System Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.27,050/- per month. On 06.02.2009, he was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-09-C-0761, driven by one Shivaji Fatan from Ponda to Panaji. On reaching near William Construction, Sao Pedro at 11:30 hours or so, the respondent no. 1 came driving the Qualis Jeep bearing registration no. GA-01-R-5527 from the opposite direction and without giving hand or light signal took the vehicle to his extreme right hand side and gave a dash to the motorcycle. In the said accident he sustained severe injuries to the right leg and other minor injuries. Crime came to be registered against the driver of the Qualis. The claimant sustained permanent disability. His family was also affected as he was the only earning member. He had lost his job due to the injuries. He claimed amount of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondents.

3. After considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.13,88,700/- to the claimant.

4. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Emerico Afonso for the appellant and the learned Counsel Mr. Kurtikar for the respondent. In the Trial Court, respondent no. 2 alone contested the Petition. No W.S. was filed by respondent no. 1, who was the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Afonso fairly conceded that the Claim Petition filed by the driver of the motorcycle, is already allowed and as Insurance Company has also satisfied the award, he will not advance arguments on the point of rash and negligent driving. Therefore, he will restrict his arguments only to the extent of quantum of amount of compensation. He submitted that 20% of disability cannot be considered for calculation of loss of earnings as the said disability is of the right lower limb and it is not of the whole body. For this, he relied on Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. It is further submitted that the claimant produced Income Tax Returns for the year 2007-08 and for assessment year 2006-07, but has not produced any Income Tax Return of the relevant period. For this he relied on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. It is submitted that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that percentage of disability is not of the whole body and it is only in respect of right lower limb. The learned Tribunal erred in holding the monthly income as Rs.27,050/- from the salary certificate without there being any deductions on personal allowances. His basic salary was Rs.10,000/- as per salary certificate and learned Tribunal ought to have considered the amount of Rs.10,000/- (which is his basic) as the monthly income of the claimant. He relied on National Insurance Company Vs. Ms. Vaishali Harish Devare & Others, (2013) 2 AllMR 368. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Afonso that the claimant admitted that he had gone to Dr. Parulekar on his own and he was not referred from G.M.C. Hospital. Thus, the treatment taken at Parulekar Hospital cannot be said to be required treatment and the bills claimed are not genuine. As such, the Tribunal granted exorbitant compensation without there being any basis and hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and order.

6. As against this, learned Counsel Mr. Kurtikar submitted that in fact, the claimant is entitled for more than what is awarded. It is recorded in the judgment itself that the claimant is entitled for Rs.16,33,760/-, but for no reason the amount is reduced t