K.K. Usha, J.

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is whether loss of front right upper incisor tooth of the injured claimant would amount to a permanent disability as defined under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod has taken the view in the award passed in O P. (MV) 451/93 that it would. !n a motor accident, which took place on 17.3.1993, the 1 st respondent herein sustained certain minor injuries and also fracture of the right incisor tooth. Later the tooth was extracted. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent in the O.P. (MV) and therefore respondents 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the petitioner. The above finding is not under challenge in this appeal filed by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.

2. The claimant is a young man of 28 years old and working as a teacher in a parallel college. The Tribunal held that he is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,500/-as compensation for pain and suffering, Rs. 5000/-towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1500/- towards medical and miscellaneous expenses and Rs. 12,000/-towards disability. Thus a total amount of Rs. 17,500/- was found as compensation due to the claimant. Thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to consider a contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compensation to be awarded cannot at any rate be below Rs. 25000/-, to which he would be entitled to under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the petitioner had suffered permanent disability. The argument was that by loss of one front upper incisor tooth the petitioner had suffered permanent disability entitling him to compensation under S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal after comparing the provisions contained under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act and S.320 of the IPC came to the conclusion that though loss of a tooth would easily fall under the definition of grevious hurt under S.320 IPC (Cl. 7) in the absence of a stipulation similar to clause seventhly of S.320 IPC in S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act the loss of a tooth cannot be straightaway be held to amount to permanent disability as defined under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After entering the above finding the learned Tribunal proceeded to examine whether the tooth would be a member referred in cl. (a) and (b) of S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The following extract from Dr. Hari Singh gout's Penal Law of India 10th Edition was then quoted:

"The term "member" as used here, means nothing more than an organ or a limb, being a part of man capable of performing a distinct office. As such, it includes both the eyes, the ears, the nose, mouth, hands, feet and, in fact, all distinct part of the human body designed to perform a distinct office".

Then the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the decisions under S.320 IPC are not of much consequence in examining the question under S.142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal then took the view that the one tooth lost by the petitioner is a distinct part of the human body designed to perform a distinct office and therefore, it would come within the definition of the expression "member". Passage from Hawkins dealing with 'MEYHEM' the Tribunal derived a theory that the tooth is a weapon of offence to human being as part of his anatomy. The Tribunal also took the view that different teeth have different functions to perform. The incisor, according to the Tribunal, must have been the principal weapon or principal tooth of the primitive man as a weapon of offence to bite and that the molar tooth may not have had such an office to function for attack/ defence. The Tribunal then observed that merely because plurality of members of the anatomy performed the same common office, or function, no part of the body can be said to be not a member. Therefore, it may not be prudent to hold that the loss of one to