The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and reasonable compensation for medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and future medical expenses, considering the claimant's injuries, surgeries, and disabilities.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. A young man studying in B.E. final year Computer Science and just 22 years old was travelling to his College on his Yamaha Motor Bike when the insured vehicle namely the tempo bearing Registration No.TN 55 /A 7846 collided with his vehicle resulting in his grievous injuries. He made a claim of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,63,900/-. Against that, the insurance company has filed the appeal.

2. The claimant has filed cross objection No.14 of 2007. Though it is not listed, we have considered the present appeal from both the angles. The finding of negligence of the driver of the insured tempo is not seriously challenged. Therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is not in dispute. What is in dispute however, is the quantum.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for awarding compensation especially since the claimants avocation will not be affected by the disability to his right leg. The learned counsel submitted that had the claimant been a coolie or a labourer who requires physical movement, the diminishment of his earning power may be greater. But the person who sits in his desk and performs his work will not be seriously affected by the lack of mobility of his right leg. The learned counsel submitted that though the claimant had stated in his petition that he missed his final year because of his injury and therefore, he lost the possibility of securing a good post when the campus placement took place, he submitted that though it is stated in the claim petition that because he wrote the exam on the second attempt he was not awarded first class, these are areas of conjecture and the Tribunal ought not to have taken note of the facts for awarding the compensation. The learned counsel submitted that both the fixing of the salary and the adoption of the multiplier has resulted in an excessive claim.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/cross objector/ respondents submitted that the Tribunal should have taken note of the fact that the claimant had undergone eleven surgeries and the physical trauma and psychological trauma that he must have undergone by him could be well imagined. He was an inpatient for a period of three months in the Hospital, there had been a hip replacement surgery, the right leg has been shortened by 5 cms and the claimant is unable to wear shoes and even for walking and climbing stairs he requires assistance and he requires future treatment, for instance, physiotherapy treatment which the Tribunal had ignored.

5. The learned counsel submitted that it had been the driver of the injured vehicle who had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant. If the accident had not occurred the claimant, would have completed MCA or M.Tech and could have got a foreign job and could have earned as much as his friends had done and even in his evidence, he had stated that some of his friends are earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and some have gone to London and are earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month.

6. With the xerox copies of the evidence furnished to us by the learned counsel for the claimant, we have gone through the records. From the evidence, we are able to see the pain and suffering that the claimant had suffered because of the accident. The numerous surgeries, several months residing in the hospital as inpatient and continued physiotherapy were all parts of the Rehabilitation programme. There is no dispute that what had happened to the claimant had probably nipped a better career and also the opportunity of getting a job in a foreign country. But we cannot take into account such uncertainties while assessing what is "just and reasonable compensation". It is in his evidence that after the injury he could not take part in the exam that took place at that relevant point of time, but, subsequently, he wrote h