JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.701 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal.

2. The claimant before the Tribunal, Namakkal had filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. The case in brief is as follows:

On 30.09.2010 at about 9.30 am, when the claimant was getting down from the tractor bearing Registration No. TN 28 AC 8544, which was parked on the left side road, at that time, the TATA lorry bearing Registration No.MH 15 BJ 7159 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing road traffic rules, hit the claimant resulting in the claimant sustaining grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Surat and subsequently he was taken to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore where he had spent 50 days and Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses. His right leg was completely amputated above the knee.

4. Mr. C. Thangaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the appellant himself had adduced evidence as P.W.1 before the Tribunal, Namakkal. During the evidence, he had marked documents from Exs.P.1 to P.12. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years. He was a heavy vehicle driver in RCS Transport, Namakkal. He earned more than Rs.20,000/-. He is the breadwinner of the family. Subsequent to the accident, he is unable to drive the heavy vehicle due to the amputation of the left leg above the knee. Therefore, he had produced the disability certificate under Ex.P.12 wherein it has been mentioned as 82% disability. He had marked Ex.P.5 as his medical bills and Ex.P.6 as driving licence regarding his tractor. He had marked Ex.P.7, his photograph regarding fracture and amputation and Ex.P.10 as Salary certificate. He had also examined the employer P.W.2 under whom he had served regarding proof of income. He had also examined the Doctor who had assessed his partial permanent disability, as P.W.3. After due enquiry, the Tribunal had failed to consider the partial permanent disability suffered by the claimant resulting in loss of his job as a heavy vehicle driver who was working on inter state and national permit lorry and had fixed notional income as Rs.6,000/- whereas evidence available by way of the employer who had deposed as P.W.2 is that the income of the claimant was Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.400/- as batta per day. The Tribunal had fixed the notional income as Rs.6000/-. Therefore, the award passed is on the lower side. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

5. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the accident took place in the year 2010. At that time, the salary as per P.W.2 was Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, this Court can consider Rs.10,000/- as salary and not more than that whereas the appellant claims Rs.20,000/- per month. Regarding all other heads there is no dispute. The only dispute by the claimant is with regard to the salary of Rs.20,000/- per month as it was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company accepts that the claimant's salary may be fixed at Rs.10,000/- and appropriate orders may be passed.

6. Point for consideration

Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhancement of the award amount.

7. Perused the petition and counter in MCOP.No.701 2011, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal and the grounds of appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement.

8. Submissions of the learned counsel for th