The main legal point established is the consideration of various factors including education, employment prospects, medical evidence, and the impact of injuries to determine the appropriate compensation in motor accident cases.

Hariparanthaman, J.

The appellant was the claimant. She rode a TVS Scooty on 10.2.2004 at 10.15 p.m., at Karur-Trichy Road. A lorry owned by respondent No. 1 came from the opposite direction and hit against her at Pasupathipalayam, Karur and dragged her for 100 ft causing grievous injuries on both hands, both legs and also at hip and on the spinal cord. She was immediately taken to Loka Hospital at Karur and on 11.2.2004, she was taken to Kovai Medical Centre Hospital at Coimbatore from Loka Hospital. She was treated as inpatient up to 14.2.2004. She was treated as inpatient at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore from 14.2.2004 to 13.4.2004. She was also treated at ANNS Homoeo Hospital at Chennai and thereafter, she was taking treatment as outpatient. She is a B.E. graduate in Computer Science and she passed B.E. in May 2003 with first class. She also participated in sports while she studied in the engineering course. She got married to a homoeopathy doctor on 12.11.2003. She was certified that she had suffered 80 per cent permanent partial disability. She filed M.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2005, claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. Before the Tribunal, appellant was examined as first witness and the doctor who gave disability certificate was examined as second witness, on the side of the appellant. Documents Exh. A1 to Exh. A22 were marked on the side of the appellant. No witness was examined on the side of the respondents and no documents were marked. The Tribunal passed an award on 6.3.2006, granting a sum of Rs. 7,11,000 as compensation. The appeal is preferred by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. The Tribunal granted Rs. 7,11,000 as compensation under the following heads:

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erroneously held that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of income, as she was not in employment. The learned counsel for the appellant has serious objection to this portion of the award, declining to grant compensation towards loss of future income. The learned counsel submits that the appellant was an engineering graduate in Computer Science with first class. Exh. A13 is the degree awarding B.E. certificate by Periyar University. As per Exh. A13, she passed B.E. Computer Science in first class in May 2003. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this court that a call letter, Exh. A10, dated 3.3.2004, from Infosys Technologies Limited was sent to the appellant to appear for written test on 21.3.2004 while she was bedridden in the hospital. It is submitted that the average earnings of computer engineers are Rs. 30,000 p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to grant any award towards loss of future income. The learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T.A. Nicholas and Others, (2010) ACJ 1289 : (2011) 1 TAC 241, wherein the Division Bench took Rs. 10,000 as the salary of a B.E. Computer Science student.

5. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the nature of injuries and the treatment given to the appellant and more particularly insertion of iron plates and rods at many places in her body, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. It is submitted that s