The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of medical evidence, assessment of disablement, and the principles of Rajkumar vs. Ajaykumar, 2011 ACJ (1) to compute the loss of earning capacity and determine the compensation.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Respondent aged about 24 years, said to be an electrician sustained fractures in shaft of right femur and other injuries, treated as inpatient between 06.07.2011 and 17.08.2011 for 40 days. He has filed M.C.O.P. No. 4949 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. To prove that he has sustained multiple injuries and incurred expenses, the respondent has marked Exs.P2 and P8, discharge summaries issued by Government General Hospital, Chennai and Chengalpet, respectively, Ex.P3, X-ray, Ex.P7, photographs with CD, Ex.P11, disability certificate and Ex.P12, x-ray, taken at the time of assessment.

2. To prove that he was a qualified electrician, he has marked Ex.P4, order appointing him as an Electrician in Audco India Limited, Maraimalai Nagar. To prove that he was employed as an electrician in Audco India Limited, Maraimalai Nagar and earned Rs. 4,500/- per month, he has produced Ex.P4, appointment order, Ex.P5, identity card and Ex.P9, qualification certificate as wireman. But he has not examined the employer.

3. Insurance company though disputed the manner of accident and the consequential liability to pay compensation, the claims tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the driver of the maxicab Van bearing Regn. No. TN21 AC 4887, insured with them was negligent in causing the accident. Though, the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads, is also disputed, on the basis of the medical evidence adduced and avocation pleaded, the claims tribunal, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,65,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim, till the date of deposit, as detailed below.

Loss of income for 6 months : Rs. 27,000/-

Transportation, Extra nourishment & Damage to clothes : Rs. 25,000/-

Medical expenses : Rs. 5,000/-

Pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/-

Disability of 45% at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per percentage : Rs. 90,000/-

Loss of future earning capacity : Rs.2,43,000/-

Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/-

Attender : Rs. 10,000/-

4. At the outset, Ms. C. Harini, learned counsel for M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, appellant herein contended that quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant is the only challenge in this appeal. Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.

5. In support of the challenge, learned counsel for the appellant company submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in accepting the extent of disablement as 45% on the basis of the opinion of PW2, Doctor, a stock witness in most of the claim petitions. It is also her contention that the claims tribunal erred in fixing the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 2,43,000/- without any basis. Attention of this Court was also invited to the compensation of Rs. 90,000/- awarded under the head disability. In sum and substance, she submitted that the claims tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation under above heads and for the abovesaid reasons, sought for reduction.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the award.

7. First of all to prove the avocation, the respondent/claimant has produced Ex.P9, Qualification certificate for Wireman. He has also marked Ex.P4, order appointing him as an Electrician in Audco India Limited, Maraimalai Nagar. Though, the employer has not been examined, there is no reason as to why, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent/claimant as regards the educational qualification for wireman and avocation, should be rejected. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the respondent/claimant that, at the time of accident, he was qualified to become an electrician.

8. As regards the nature of injuries, sustained in the accident, upon perusal of Ex.P2, discharge summary, issued by the Government Hospital, Chennai, the claims tribunal has recorded that he has