The Insurance Company mainly questions the quantum of compensation granted to the first respondent.

2. The claimant was awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.1,50,000/-towards property damage.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant is a non-earning member - a 'Homemaker', however, the Tribunal adopted a monthly income as yardstick. Further, in the facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. A second-hand car suffered damage. Its value itself is Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal granted Rs.1,50,000/-. Further, no proper person has been examined to speak about the estimate and the receipts. The Tribunal granted excessive compensation.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant had suffered 36% disability. The Doctor's evidence and the evidence of P.W.1 discloses the continued effect of the disability on the claimant. Based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal properly assessed the property damage.

5. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and the impugned Judgment.

6. First respondent, her husband and the chil