IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for assessing loss of future earning capacity and determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the claimant's injuries and disabilities.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 27.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2016 passed in MCOP No.59 of 2015 on the file of the motor accidents claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the said Tribunal.

2. The parties herein are referred as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claim compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident that occurred on 11.10.2024. The Tribunal, upon consideration passed an award for a sum of Rs.10,51,094/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Though on behalf of respondents, counsels entered appearance, no argument was advance on behalf of them.

4. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant suffered crush injuries over his left hand and wrist.

5. It is his further argument that the disability of the claimant was assessed as 65% by Dr. Selavaraj (P.W7) is on the higher side. The Tribunal, instead of granting compensation for partial permanent disability, wrongly chose to grant compensation for loss of earning power by awarding Rs.6,12,000/-.

6. The following MCOPs arise out of the same accident. For MCOP Nos.46,48,49,56,57 and 59 of 2015, common evidences was recorded and common judgments was passed.

7. The claimant Karthick was examined as P.W6 and Ex.P13 to Ex.P.17 and Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance company no witnesses was examined.

8. It has come on record that on 11.10.2014 at about 9:45 a.m while the claimant along with the claimants' in other MCOPs were traveling in a tata city car bearing registration No. TN 49 AT 5529 from Sivankoil to Aranthagi, at the place near Periyanayakipuram, Kulakudikulam, Thiruchittrambalam, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner and while turning, the van capsized and all the claimants' sustained injuries, is not in dispute.

9. It is discernible from the perusal of the discharge summary (Ex.P14) issued by Kauvery Hospital, Trichy, that the claimant was admitted at Kauvery hospital on 20.10.2024 and on account of the accident he has suffered the following injuries/fractures :

(i) Left Haemothoarx with fracture multiple rib left chest

(ii) Fracture left scapula

(iii) Open acromio clavicular dislocation, left

(iv) Crush injury of left hand and wrist with carpometacarpal and intercarpal dislocation with absent radial pulse

(v) Segmental loss of extensor tendons of left hand (EPL, APL, ECRB, EDI, EDL)

(vi) Radial artery cut injury at wrist level – left

(vii) Brachial plexus palsy, left.

He got discharged on 2010.2014. On 12.10.2014 for the left hand and left shoulder wound debridement was done. For the thumb alone another surgery was done on 16.10.2014. On 18.10.2014 skin grafting was done for the shoulder area. It is the evidence of Dr. Selvaraj (P.W7) that due to the above said injuries and fractures it is not possible for the claimant to do the work as he did before.

10. The claimant (P.W6) claimed that he was working as a Steel Fitter and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and the Tribunal has fixed his monthly income as Rs.6,000/-. From a careful perusal of the evidence of the claimant (P.W6) and Dr. Selvaraj (P.W7) coupled with the medical records, it appears that the claimant has suffered fractures over his left shoulder, left fore arm and he was under treatment for a long period. It is relevant to note that three surgeries were done to the claimant (P.W6). The Tribunal has fixed the disability at 50