Insurance Company exonerated from the liability.

Shanmukham, J.

The motor accident that took place on 22nd Feburary, 1979 near Pillur village, south of Ulundurpet in Grand Trunk Road, had given rise to three claim petitions, O.P. Nos.85, 133 and 137 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. The Tribunal rendered a common judgment in all the three proceedings. The two appeals are directed against the award passed by the Tribunal in O.Ps. Nos. 85 and 137of 1979 respectively. The appellant in both the appeals is the owner of the lorry which was involved in the accident and 1st respondent in the former is the claimant before the Tribunal, while respondents 1 to 7 are the claimants in the latter. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company which ranked as 2nd respondent even before the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry M.D.G. 1609; it awarded Rs. 13,300/-, to the 1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 645 of 1980, because his hand was crushed and ultimately, his left hand had to be amputated and also he suffered multiple injuries, made up of Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the injured, Rs. 300 towards loss of income for a period of two months at Rs.150 per month, Rs. 3,000 as compensation for pain and suffering. In the other proceeding, the Tribunal gave an award for Rs.20,600 made up of 16,100 being compensation for loss of dependency and Rs.4,500 as compensation to the deceaseds wife. The Tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle the appellant before us to pay compensation to the injured and to the heirs of the deceased respectively, but dismissed the claim as against the insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions. The first is that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability. In this context, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had not made a proper construction of section 95, particularly the proviso attached thereto and section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, while the second is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Let us take up the second point in the first instance. The injured (1st respondent in C.M.A. No. 645 of 1980) was discharged from Government Hospital, Perambalur only on 20th April, 1979 as seen from Exhibit A-7. Thus, it is established that for nearly two months, he was lying in the hospital undergoing treatment. It is not in dispute that his left fore-arm had been amputated in the Government Hospital at Cuddalore and consequently, he had suffered a permanent disability. The Tribunal had fixed only Rs 3,000 as compensation for his suffering and mental agony, while it fixed Rs. 10,000 as compensation for permanent disability. Except contending that the compensation awarded is excessive, the learned counsel could not make any effective argument. It is found that this claimant is aged about 32 years and on account of the accident, lost his left hand below her elbow. Considering his age, we hold the compensation awarded for permanent disability cannot be said to be excessive; so too, considering the duration of his suffering and his stay in the hospitals, we are unable to hold that the sum of Rs.3,000 awarded as compensation for mental agony and suffering is excessive. The third item related to the loss of income for the period of two months during which this claimant was laid up in the hospital for treatment. The Tribunal assessed the salary of the claimant at Rs.5 per day and thus, fixed the compensation in the sum of Rs.300 for two months. It is no gainsay that even in 1979, any ordinary coolie was earning more than Rs. 5 a day, even in a village Thus, we see no justification to interfere with such a factual finding rendered by the Tribunal.

5. As regards the quantum awarded to the heirs of the deceased Sengan who lost his life in the accident, we have to hold that such assessment by the Tribunal can hardly be assailed on the evidenc