The central legal point established in the judgment is that the assessment of compensation under loss of future earnings should consider the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity and should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 7.3.2003 made in MCOP.Nos.301 and 302/2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge (MACT) Bhavani.

2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,43,588/- as total compensation to the injured claimant N. Chandrasekar in MCOP.No.301/2001/the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.3061/2003 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 1.6.2001 and awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,138/-as total compensation to the injured claimant K. Govindaraj in MCOP.No.302/2001 for the injuries sustained by him in the same accident and awarded interest at 9 per cent from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization in both the claim petitions.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.6.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., both the claimants alighted from the bus at Chinnathambipalayam and after getting down from the bus, they were walking along the Chinnathambipalayam-Nagalur Road to go to Nagalur to supply tea powder pockets on the left side of the road and when they were going in front of Perumalkoil Karadu, the offending vehicle (TVS-50) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimants, causing multiple injuries to them. Immediately, they were taken to Surya Hospital, Anthiyur and they were given treatment. They claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively before the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by them. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation as stated above. These appeals have been filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, seeking reduction of compensation.

4. Mr. N.B. Surekha, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is unreasonable and is disproportionate to the injuries sustained by them in the accident.

5. On the other hand, Mr. N. Manokaran, the learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants supported the impugned award in all respects and contended that the impugned award is just and reasonable and is in consonance with the evidence placed on record.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment and award.

7. In so far as the claimant in MCOP.No.301/2001 is concerned, he sustained fracture of lateral 1/3rd of left clavicle and fracture of shaft of right forearm. He also sustained abrasion 10x2cm over left eyebrow. PW.3 Dr. R. Krishnasamy, who examined the claimant and assessed his disability, has deposed that on account of the fracture suffered by him on the left clavicle and right thigh, he found a painful wound scar about 31 x = cm present over the lateral aspect of the right thigh extending from upper part down to the lateral aspect of the right knee and a painful wound scar about 9x1/4 cm over the front of the right side of illiac crest. He also found a painful wound scar about 11x1/4cm posterior medial aspect of the right glottal region. He also found that thigh muscles are wasted about 2 cm in circumference. Length of thigh was also shortened to an extent of 1 cm height and hip movements were limited and attempted movements are painful. He also deposed that the claimant is not able to sit cross legged on the floor while eating and also not able to sit for toilet purposes. He has deposed that walking for long distance and long time standing would increase pain in right hip, right thigh and knee. He had also found swelling over the lateral 1/3rd of the left clavicle and deformity on the bone was also noted on the right clavicle region resulting in restriction of movements of the left shoulder, which is also painful. He has further stated that the claimant will not be able to lift any heavy objects and left