The court has the authority to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the assessment of disability, loss of earning capacity, and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.07.2015 made in MCOP.No.4705 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.07.2015 made in MCOP.No.4705 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai

2. The Tribunal had awarded the compensation as follows:

3. The learned counsel appearing for appellant/insurance company would submit that in the present case, the disability assessed by the Doctor was at 45% and the injured was hospitalised only for 4 days, that too for treating the fracture of proximal third shaft of right femur, open reduction and internal fixation with I.M.Nailing with interlocking screws (10X400 mm), which are all the preliminary procedure to treat an injured. Even the Doctor, who had treated the injured has not given the disability certificate. But the Doctor, who examined the injured, had assessed the disability at 45% and issued the disability certificate without applying his mind. Further, it has been stated as “Rt.TBIA” in the said disability certificate. Therefore, the said certificate was issued in a mechanical way and based on the same, he was awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- for disability by the Tribunal.

4. Further he would submit that the Tribunal had awarded two compensations, one is for disability by applying percentage method and another is for loss of earnings for future. Hence, he would contend that the claimant is entitled for any one of those compensations.

5. He would also contend that with regard to all other heads, viz., Transportation, Damages for paid and sufferings and Loss of amenities, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and hence, he prayed for reduction of compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that in the present case, in the discharge summary of the injured, it has been mentioned correctly. However, while issuance of disability, it has been wrongly stated as “Rt TBIA”. Since it is a typographical error, the Doctor who assessed the disability had applied his mind and fixed the disability as 45% correctly.

7. Further he would fairly submit that as far as disability and loss of earnings are concerned, the claimant is entitled for any one of those compensations and the amount should not have been awarded for both disability and loss of earnings, when the compensation for loss of earning capacity was awarded based on multiplier method.

8. With regard to all other aspects, he would submit that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair and need no interference.

9. I have given due consideration for the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

10. In the present case, it is no doubt that only in the disability certificate it has been wrongly mentioned as “Rt.TBIA”. However, in the discharge summary, it was mentioned as “Right Femur” and hence, the same is only a typographical error and nothing more than that.

11. In the present case, the compensation was awarded for disability by applying the percentage method as well as for loss of earnings by applying multiplier. However, the injured is only entitled for any one of those compensations. This Court is inclined to award compensation by applying percentage metho