JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J.

This matter is heard through Video Conferencing.

2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by its judgment and decree dated 12.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.7123 of 2013 on the file of IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as ‘claimant’ and the second respondent is referred to as ‘Insurance Company’.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 20.02.2013 at about 11.45 p.m., while the claimant was on his duty as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-B-5868, which was proceeding on the Redhills-Karanodai Joint Road, another Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-39-5387, belonging to first respondent and insured with the Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry in which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries viz., crush injuries over his right leg, right femur, head, left leg and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted at Government Stanley Hospital, wherein his right leg was amputated. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-.

5. Resisting the claim, the Insurance Company had filed a detailed counter inter alia stating that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by claimant. They further denied the age, occupation and income of the claimant.

6. To prove his claim, before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 besides examining one Seenivasan as PW-2 and marked 12 documents Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of Insurance Company, no witness was examined, but, 2 documents were marked.

7. On appreciation of materials, the Tribunal, found that the accident had occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry belonging to first respondent and held that the Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

8. Learned counsel for claimant submits that the claimant is a cleaner by avocation. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant’s right leg above knee was amputated. Ex.P4 is the copy of the disability certificate issued by the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, wherein it is mentioned that the claimant suffers from locomotor disability and that the diagnosis done in his case was right transfemoral amputation and that he had 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. However, the Tribunal had fixed his disability only at 55%, which had resulted in awarding an inadequate compensation of Rs.10,72,500/- under the head ‘functional disability. Thus, learned counsel prays this Court to fix the disability at 80% and accordingly, enhance the compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

10. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

11. This