IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the First Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act in assessing disability percentage and the use of the multiplier method to calculate loss of earning power due to disability.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in MCOP No. 49 of 2010 dated 10.07.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram vide judgment dated 10.07.2012 in MCOP No. 49 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2009, when the claimant was getting into the respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-32-N-2689, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, by which, the claimant fell down from the bus and the wheels of the bus ran over the left leg of the claimant. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including fracture on his left leg and later the left leg was amputated. Considering the claim petition, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 60 years and he was doing real estate business and earning for about Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is very meagre.

4. He would also submit that the claimant had sustained severe fracture on his left leg, due to which, he was not able to do day-to-day activities. Further, though the Medical Board had assessed the disability of the injured at 70%, the Tribunal has taken it only as 25% towards functional disability and awarded the compensation by applying multiplier method, which is on the lower side. Hence, he requests this Court to enhance the same.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, at the time of accident which occurred in the year 2009, the claimant/appellant was aged about 60 years and doing real estate business and earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, without considering the same, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- which is very meagre and the same needs to modified by this Court. Further, he relied upon the decision in the case of Syed Sadiq vs. United India Insurance Company, 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court fixed the notional monthly income even for a vegetable vendor at Rs. 6,500/- who sustained injuries in the accident occurred in the year 2008. Therefore, the learned counsel would urge this Court to enhance the notional income of the appellant and award just and fair compensation. The learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation expenses, which requires to be enhanced. He further submits that no amount has been awarded towards future medical expenses since the claimant has to replace the artificial limb periodically, he would urge this Court to grant fair compensation under this head.

6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that considering the year of accident and nature of avocation, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference and hence, he requests this Court to confirm the same.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the present case, the accident had occurred in the