The main legal point established is the application of principles of just compensation, considering the impact of disability on future earning capacity and the need to restore the injured to their pre-accident position.

1. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Devakottai in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2010 by the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2011, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The Appellant / Claimant is an young girl aged about 19 years, studying first year Computer Science course in Anantha College at Devakottai. On 07.07.2008 at about 09.10 a.m., when she was going to the college in her bicycle in Devakottai - Karaikudi Main Road from East to West on the leftern side of the road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 46 E 7668 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her. In the said accident, the right leg of the appellant was badly injured and despite the best treatment given, she had to undergo amputation of the right leg below the knee.

3. The appellant herein filed a claim petition, estimating the compensation at Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only), however, restricted her claim to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

4. The claim was resisted and the Insurance Company wanted to exonerate itself from the liability to pay the compensation on the following grounds:-

(i) The accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent.

(ii) At the time of the accident, the first respondent / driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the lorry.

(iii) The place, date and time of the accident are not admitted.

5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal examined the Appellant / Claimant as P.W.1 apart from the Doctor (P.W.2), who treated her and considered Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Though the validity of the driving license of the first respondent has been disputed by the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced to substantiate its stand.

6. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence gave a finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent / driver, essentially basing the findings on the admission made by the driver before the Criminal Court, admitting that he was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and fixed the liability on the Insurance Company. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,17,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) under the following Heads:-

7. It is the grievance of the appellant herein that when she is at the threshold of her youth, having great dreams towards the bright prospective future, the Tribunal, without considering the social, cultural, economic and political opportunities in life has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.3,17,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) as compensation. The specific grievance of the appellant is that when she suffered 70% of the permanent disability and the same is strengthened by the evidence of the Doctor and the Disability Certificate-Ex.P.10, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method in arriving at the compensation and instead of doing so, the Tribunal has chosen to award a lump sum compensation, which has resulted in meagre amount being awarded to her.

8. It is submitted that while the Appellant / Claimant suffered 70% of the disability and the same is borne out by the Disability Certificate-Ex.P.10, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) towards permanent disability and the Tribunal failed to take into note the fact that the Appellant / Claimant was a first year Computer Science student.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the loss of leg, the appellant was totally dependent on others even to attend nature call and she could not do her normal activities, as she had been doing earlier. However, the Tribunal without considering the loss of leg, awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards fu