The main legal point established in the judgment is that the functional disability of a claimant, particularly in cases of amputation, should be assessed based on the specific circumstances and precedents, leading to the determination of just compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Coutinho for the appellant-claimant and Mr. Kakodkar for respondent no.3-insurance company.

2. The appellant-claimant challenges the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2015 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.130/2012 to the extent it denied the appellant-claimant the claimed compensation based on 100% functional disability and compensation under certain established heads. In short, the claimant seeks additional compensation by instituting this appeal.

3. Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the claimant's right leg had to be amputated as a result of the accident. He points out that the claimant was a driver; therefore, the functional disability was to the extent of 100% and not merely 75%, as held by the Tribunal. He relies on S. Suresh v/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2010) 13 SCC 777 and Lal Singh Marabi v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - (2017) 5 SCC 82 in support of his contentions.

4. Mr. Coutinho submits that the Tribunal should have also awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards providing an artificial limb, Rs. 10,000/- for the loss incurred by the claimant during hospitalization and treatment, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the future medical expenditure, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Therefore, failing to make such awards amounts to denying just compensation.

5. Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the insurance company, defends the impugned judgment and award by pointing out that the computation is in terms of the law in Raj Kumar v/s. Ajay Kumar And Another - (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Neerupam Mohan Mathur v/s. New India Assurance Company - (2013) 14 SCC 15. He points out that the claimant was competent to discharge other duties; therefore, the functional disability could not be taken as 100%.

6. Mr. Kakodkar submits that no further compensation becomes due and payable. In particular, he pointed out the decision in Raj Kumar (supra) and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accord with the principles in the said decision. Mr. Kakodkar, therefore, submits that this appeal may be dismissed.

7. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

8. The evidence on record establishes without doubt that the claimant's right leg above the knee had to be amputated as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, the doctors have certified the disability at 70%. The Tribunal has, however, taken the functional disability at 75%.

9. The Tribunal, in this case, has gone almost entirely by Illustration (B) in Raj Kumar (supra). The Illustration, no doubt, refers to a functional disability of 75% where the hand of a driver aged 30 years was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal, however, failed to notice the note after para 20 in which it was clarified that the figures adopted in Illustrations A and B were hypothetical. That apart, the illustrations dealt with amputation of a hand without specifying whether the same was the right hand or the left hand. In this case, we are concerned with the amputation of the claimant's right leg, who was admittedly working as a driver.

10. In S. Suresh (supra), the issue involved was the amputation of the right leg of a driver whose disability had been certified at 60%. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimant being a lorry driver and losing his right leg ipso facto meant total disablement. Therefore, it ought to have been held that the lorry driver whose right leg was amputated had lost 100% of his earning capacity as a lorry driver. More so, he was disqualified from even getting a driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, in almost similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the functional disability should be assessed at 100%, where the right leg of a driver had to be amputated.

11. In Lal Singh (sup