The main legal point established is that amputation and disability can be considered as a functional disability, and the loss of limb can be equivalent to the loss of livelihood, influencing the determination of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam.)

1. The appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kumbakonam in MCOP.No.217 of 2015.

2. The injured claimant had filed a claim petition contending that he is a Flower Vendor having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. He had further contended that the accident had taken place on 18.02.2015. He had sustained fracture in the right hand, left leg and there was an amputation below the thigh of the left leg. He had further contended that there are grievous injuries in the chest portion which had affected his lungs for which he had underwent a surgery. According to him, he had sustained injuries in the left shoulder and in right leg.

3. The claimant had filed Exhibit P2-discharge certificate, Exhibit P3-scan report, Exhibit P4-lab report, Exhibit P13-discharge summary and Exhibit P17- wound certificate. The claimant had examined himself as PW1 and an Ortho Doctor as PW2.

4. The Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the injured claimant had sustained 90% partial permanent disablement based upon Exhibit P17-wound certificate. For the said disability, the Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/- per percentage and awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal had further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards attender charges; Rs.15,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and the balance amount on the basis of Exhibits P5 to P8 and Exhibit P12 medical bills. A total compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,63,120/- was awarded. This award is challenged in the present appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant had contended that the appellant''s left leg has been amputated from the thigh portion. Therefore, the injured claimant cannot carry on his flower vendor business. He would not be in a position to carry on any different business whatsoever in view of amputation of the left leg. Therefore, 90% of the disability should have been considered by the Tribunal as a functional disability. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC) (Syed Sadiq etc., Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.,Ltd.,) where the amputation of the right leg and the disability of 65% of a vegetable vendor was considered to be a functional disability and multiplier method was adopted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that being a case of amputation, compensation should have been awarded for fixation of artificial limb. Considering the fact that his left leg has been amputated, an award should have been passed under the head of loss of amenities. The award of the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering is on the lesser side, considering the nature of disability sustained by the claimant. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation under the different heads.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent /Transport Corporation had contended that 90% disability sustained by the claimant cannot be considered to be a functional disability. Even as per the claim petition, he is a Flower Vendor in Uppiliyappan Kovil, Thirunageswaram at Kumbakonam. It is not the case of the claimant that the he is not in a position to carry on the said business or there is any loss of income from the said business. The learned counsel had further contended that the Tribunal was right in not applying multiplier method when there is only a partial permanent disability and not a f