The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident claims based on the extent of injuries and the claimant's inability to work.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. This appeal is preferred by Insurance Company/original respondent no.2 .

2. Brief facts of the case are as under. On 1/2/1994, respondent no. 1- original claimant (for short 'the Claimant') was proceedings from Gowandi station to Baiganwadi (Shivaji Nagar), in an Auto Rickshaw No. MH 03 E 1265. The Auto Rickshaw was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of Auto Rickshaw had overtaken another vehicle and thus lost control over his Auto Rickshaw and dashed against the Auto Rickshaw coming from opposite direction. As a result of the forceful dash, the claimant got injured and fell on the road. He was admitted in the hospital for treatment. He suffered multiple grievous injuries. The FIR was registered against the driver of Auto Rickshaw.

3. The claim petition was filed by the claimant for getting compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has awarded compensation against the said judgment and order this appeal.

4. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant and excessive compensation of Rs.5,02, 150.00. The Tribunal failed to consider that every disability does not result in loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has considered monthly income of the claimant on higher side. The Disability Certificate of claimant is issued on higher side but, the Tribunal has not considered these facts and passed the impugned order. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

5. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondents that, at the time of accident, the claimant was working as Mason Gowandi. He was earning Rs.100.00 per day. But, the Tribunal has considered his income Rs.2,000.00 per month. The claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident, he was operated for the said injuries on two occasions. Dr. Puranik has given certificate of 87% permanent partial disability. Due to said accidental injuries, the claimant is unable to do any work. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and has awarded compensation which is proper.

6. I have heard, both the learned counsel, perused judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The issue in this appeal is compensation awarded to the claimant is on the higher side. To prove his case, the claimant has examined himself. He has stated that due to said accident, he was seriously injured. Initially on 01/02/1994, he was admitted in Hegde Hospital, Chembur. Thereafter, he was admitted in Diamond Polyclinic and Nursing Home, Chembur from 02/02/1994 to 03/03/1994 and second time he was admitted from 07/03/1994 to 13/03/1994. Thereafter, third time he was admitted from 28/12/1995 to 03/01/1996 and 08/10/2002 to 22/10/2002 for further treatment and operation. He has further stated that he was attending OPD treatment in Diamond Polyclinic and Nursing Home for about 12 months, he used to go once a week for OPD in Diamond Polyclinic and Nursing Home, Chembur. He used to go by taxi for which he spent Rs.90.00 per trip. He was advised to take special diet, he took special diet for a period of six months. He use to spend Rs.65.00 to 75/- per day for the special diet. At the time of accident, he was working as a Mason with Vaishali Construction Civil & Plumbing Contractors, Shivaji Nagar (Baiganwadi), Govandi. He was getting Rs.100.00 daily as Mason and from the date of accident, he is unable to do the work because of accidental injury. He is unable to walk for long distance, he cannot run, cannot climb staircases as he is having flexion dormity right knee of 20 degree flexion Right knee of 90 degree further flexion to possible wasting Muscles. All these problems and infirmities has led to complete occupational disability. He consulted Dr. Satish Puranik, Orthopedic Surgeon for the assessment of his disability. He issued disability of 87%. This witness was extensively c