Distinction between permanent disability and loss of earning

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

The above is directed by the Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Madras, against the Award dated 10. 1994 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, in M.C.O.P. No.344 of 1992, awading a total compensation of Rs.71,225 to the 1st respondent with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment.

2. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram, claiming a total sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 7. 1992. According to him, while he was proceeding in a cycle carrying 50 litres of milk, the bus bearing registration No.DCB.9519 belonging to the appellant/ Corporation, which was driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and thereby he sustained injuries. He has estimated the loss at rupees one lakh. The appellant filed a counter statement disputing both negligence as well as the quantum claimed by the 1st respondent. In the counter statement it was contended that the 2nd respondent was driving the vehicle cautiously and according to the traffic rules but that the 1st respondent, who was coming in a cycle with heavy load of milk in two cans, suddenly came to the middle of the road and invited the accident and sustained injuries.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/ claimant has filed Exs.P-1 to P-10, which are F.I.R., wound certificate, medical and hospital bills, receipt given by the doctor, etc. The 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.I and one Dr. Sekar as P.W.2. The driver of the bus viz., the 2nd respondent herein, was examined as R.W.I on the side of the Corporation. No documentary evidence was filed on the side of the Corporation. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver/2nd respondent. On a consideration of the wound certificate and the certificate issued by the doctor, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent has sustained a fracture in the right leg, injuries on his fore-head, loss of two teeth and fracture on the right leg and below the hip bone besides other injuries. On the basis of the medical certificate and also the evidence of the doctor (P.W.2), on the question of quantum, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.71,225 by way of compensation on various heads, which are as follows: (a) Loss of income was assessed at Rs.112.50 per month and calculating the same for 25 years, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation on this head at Rs.33,750. However since lump sum payment was directed to be paid the Tribunal deducted l/6th of the total amount arrived at viz., Rs.5,625 and ordered payment of Rs.28,125 under this head, (b) For pain and suffering and mental agony the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000. (c) Forpermanentdisability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000 to the 1st respondent, (d) On the basis of the medical bills the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,000 towards medical expenses, (e) Towards the doctor’s fees, a sum of Rs.5,000 was awarded as per Ex.P-6. (f) As per Ex.P-7 a sum of Rs. 100 was awarded towards medical bills, (g) Even though the 1st respondent has produced bills for Rs.1,420 towards the damages caused to his cycle, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.500 under this head, (h) Though the 1st respondent has produced bills for Rs.3,500 for using taxi, the Tribunal has held that he is entitled only to a sum of Rs.2,000. However, since he has claimed only a sum of Rs.1,500 the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.l,500 under this head.

4. In our opinion, the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence is unassailable. The evidence tendered on the side of the 1st respondent, though questioned as interested by the appellant makes it clear that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The 1st respondent filed the F.I.R. be