The assessment of permanent disability must be based on credible medical evidence to ensure just compensation for loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

(R. POORNIMA, J.)

The appellant/ Insurance Company has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A(MD)No.772 of 2021 and the claimant has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.856 of 2021 against the fair order and decreetal order dated 19.02.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.126 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The brief facts of the averments filed by the claimant before the Tribunal is as follows :

(i) On 13.10.2015 at about 8:45 PM, the petitioner purchased groceries in Karaikudi and returned to his house in a two-wheeler from Karaikudi to Madurai Main Road. The petitioner drove his vehicle at a normal speed, adhering to traffic rules and keeping the extreme left side of the mud Road. When he neared TNSTC depo, the first respondent’s vehicle bearing registration No.TN 38 AS 9632 APE, a three-wheeler coming from opposite direction viz., West to East and run by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with the hectic speed suddenly came to the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the petitioner.

(ii) Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries viz., 1. comminuted fracture of the upper portion of blade 2. The spine of right scapula with adjacent soft tissue haematoma. 3.Edema in the right scapula region. 4. Predominantly right suprascapular, elavicular region. The petitioner's motorcycle was fully damaged.

(iii) Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained bone fractures in the right leg, ankle, foot, and right hand and injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital in Karaikudi. He was admitted as an inpatient in Apollo Hospital, Madurai on 14.10.2015 and discharged on 20.10.2015. Even after the best treatment given by the Orthopedician, the petitioner could not recover properly.

(iv) The petitioner was again admitted as a patient in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. He had undergone major surgeries for fracture bone in his leg and hand for dislocation of joints, tissues, and muscles. Even after that treatment given by the Specialist, the petitioner could not move his right hand and right leg properly. The petitioner is taking treatment periodically as an outpatient. As per the advice of the doctor, the petitioner has to be on bed rest till his lifetime.

(v) The petitioner, even now unable to walk properly. Due to the multiple and grievous injuries, sustained by him, he could not go for any work as before. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as a Senior Technician in TCP Limited, Koviloor, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District, and he was getting a salary Rs.20,000/- per month. In TCP Limited, (chemical industries) the petitioner has to work nearly 10 hours, he has to move here and there frequently to do his work in industries. Due to multiple fractures in his hand and leg, he could not move his hand and leg as before. As per the advice of the Doctor, the petitioner could not continue his work. So he has got permanent disability and a total loss of income in future.

(vi) Since the accident happened due to rash and negligent, driving of the first respondent's driver, a case has been registered against the first respondent driver in crime No.232/ 15 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 IPC by the Kunnakudi Police Station which is pending for investigation.

(vii) At the time of the accident, the first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent, hence both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(viii) The petitioner prayed compensation of Rs.75 lakhs for loss of income, permanent disability, pain and suffering, mental agony, medical expenses, future medical expenses, transport, expenses, future loss of income, damage to his cycle and etc., which is modest and reasonable.

3. The brief averments contained in the counter filed by the 2^nd respondent are as follows:

(i) The 2^nd respondent denied the entire allegations contained in the petition.

(ii)