Point of Law: Nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant has not been disputed by the Appellant Insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and the Judgment dated 18.01.2016 made in MCOP.No.2294 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge-No.II, Salem.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance company challenging the Award dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge-II for MCOP cases), Salem in MCOP.No.2294 of 2010.

2. The Tribunal under the impugned award has awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,75,839/- together with interest and costs to the first respondent/claimant as detailed hereunder:

3. The Appellant Insurance company has challenged the impugned award questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the first respondent by the Tribunal. According to the Appellant, the Tribunal erred in relying on unscientific assessment of PW2 (Doctor) to assume 70% disability of the first respondent/claimant, despite the fact that the first respondent has lost his left leg (below the knee above the ankle). According to them, the Tribunal ought to have treated the disability of the first respondent/claimant based on workmen compensation schedule and Government of India guidelines for permanent disability which according to them, will be only less than 50% disability. Therefore, it is their contention that the assessment of disability at 70% by the Tribunal is excessive. The Appellant has also challenged the award on the ground that erroneously, the Tribunal has granted loss of future prospects to the first respondent/claimant at 50% despite the fact that the first respondent/claimant was aged only 22 years at the time of the accident. According to them, the Tribunal ought to have awarded only 40% towards loss of future prospects to the first respondent/claimant.

4. Heard Mr.S.Arun kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the first respondent. Since the second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

5. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award.

6. The nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant has not been disputed by the Appellant Insurance company. Admittedly, the first respondent/claimant has suffered amputation of one of his legs due to the accident caused by the vehicle insured with the Appellant.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant has filed 13 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and four witnesses were examined on his side including his Doctor namely Dr.K.V.Srinivasan as PW2 who has deposed that the first respondent/claimant has suffered 70% disability as a result of the accident. The disability certificate was also marked as Ex.P10. On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company neither any document was filed nor any witness examined.

8. The contention of the Appellant before this court is that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that as per the workmen compensation schedule and Government of India guidelines, the permanent disability for the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant cannot be fixed more than 50%. However, no evidence to that effect has been produced by the Appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal.

9. The Tribunal has passed the impugned award based on the materials available on record. The disability certificat