The court considered the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, in awarding compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident.

1. The challenge in this appeal by the Insurance Company is to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, dated 04.06.2015, made in MCOP No. 12 of 2013 granting a sum of Rs. 17,15,000/- as compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant in the road accident that occurred on 23.11.2012.

2. According to the claimants, on 23.11.2012 when the claimant was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. PY-01-BJ-8329, on Panruti Cuddalore Main Road, on the extreme left side of the road a Tipper Lorry owned by the 2nd respondent herein, insured with the appellant Insurance Company came from behind and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the accident, the 1st respondent claimant was thrown out of the vehicle and he suffered grievous injuries, resulting in amputation. Contending that it is the negligence of the driver of the lorry that caused the accident and the resultant injuries had caused a permanent disability, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

3. The Tribunal on an analysis of the evidence on record, particularly the FIR registered by the Nellikuppam Police, marked as Ex.P1, concluded that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01-V-4188 had caused the accident by his negligent driving.

4. On the quantum, the Tribunal found that the 1st respondent claimant was an inpatient for nearly 72 days. The injuries suffered by him are grievous in nature. PW-2 Doctor had deposed that the petitioner had undergone two surgeries in the right leg and left shoulder at JIPMER Hospital at Pondicherry. PW-2 has assessed the disability caused due to the injuries at 85%. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent claimant had suffered amputation because of the accident. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-2 concluded that the injuries suffered resulting in amputation, would have a direct bearing on the future earning capacity of the claimant/1st respondent.

5. The claimant had contended that he was earning a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month and the entire income is lost due to the accident. The Tribunal took the income of the claimant/1st respondent at Rs. 5,000/- per month, added Rs. 2,500/- towards future prospects, applied a multiplier of 17 and arrived at the total compensation for loss of earning capacity as Rs. 15,30,000/-.

6. The award of the Tribunal under various heads is as follows:-

S. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs. 15,30,000/-
2.	Transport to hospital	Rs. 10,000/-
3.	Pain and Sufferings	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Loss of Amenities and loss of life expectation	Rs. 50,000/-
5.	Future Treatment [for 60% disability (1000 x 60)]	Rs. 60,000/-
6.	Attendant Charges	Rs. 10,000/-
7.	Medical expenses	Rs. 5,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 17,15,000/-

7. It is this award which is now challenged by the Insurance company as excessive.

8. We have heard Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Mr. S. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant. Notice sent to the 2nd respondent/insurer has been returned as unclaimed. It is seen from the records that the 2nd respondent as remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Hence, notice to him, in this appeal, is dispensed with.

9. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company would contend that the Tribunal having arrived at the disability at 85% should not have taken the functional disability at 100%. He would also fault the Tribunal for adding 50% towards future prospects is on higher side.

10. Per contra, Mr. S. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent claimant would contend that the Tribunal was not right in taking the income as Rs. 5,0