The court emphasized the necessity of accurately assessing income and disability in compensation claims, leading to a significant enhancement of the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the injured/claimant has come before this court by way of filing the present appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the injured/claimant met with an accident on 01.10.2014, when she travelled as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 19-8371, driven by its driver. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that the bus bearing registration No.TN 22 BX 4008 belonging to the first respondent, came from the back side of the motorcycle and caused the accident. As a result of the accident, the left leg of the appellant got amputated at knee level. Both the counsel have not advanced any argument on the question of negligence and liability and therefore, the facts necessary for fixing negligence and liability have not been considered in the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the accident occurred on 01.10.2014 and inspite of the fact that the appellant produced salary slip, salary certificate, etc. issued by her employer and the same were marked as Ex.P10, P14 and P11, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration those documentary evidence available on record and fixed a meager sum of Rs.6,500/- as income of the appellant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in Ex.C1, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, disability of the appellant was assessed at 60%. However, the Tribunal over looked the same and reduced the disability at 40%, without any basis.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance company would submit that though the appellant produced pay slip, salary slip etc. issued by her Employer, she failed to produce any document to show that the said salary was actually paid to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not relying the said documents produced by the appellant/claimant. He further submitted that the appellant suffered amputation of left leg at knee level and the said disability was assessed by the Medical Board at 60% and the same was converted into functional disability at 40%. Therefore, the disability of 40% fixed by the Tribunal need not be interfered with.

5. In order to prove the avocation and the income of the appellant, she was examined as PW1 and her employer was examined as PW2. The appellant clearly deposed that she was employed as a supervisor under PW2, who is extending house keeping service to an educational institution. It is also claimed by the appellant /claimant that she served as NALAM Community Wellness Mobilizer, as a part of 'Banyan' NGO Rural Mental Health Programme. The Ex.P10 is the pay slip of the appellant issued in the month of September 2014. A perusal of the Ex.P10 would suggest that her total salary was Rs.14,000/- per month. The Ex.P14 certificate was issued by her employer, mentioning her salary as Rs.14,000/- per month. The Ex.P11 is the certificate issued by the Deputy Director of 'The Banyan', certifying that the appellant served as a NALAM Community Wellness Mobilizer and she was paid an incentive of Rs.2,500/- per month along with other allowance of Rs.500/-.

6. The appellant has produced the above said Ex.P10, P11 and P14 to suggest that her monthly income was Rs.16,500/- at the relevant point of time. The employer was also examined as PW2 and he has given evidence, supporting the income of the appellant. Though the appellant has not produced any document to show that the amount mentioned in the salary certificate and other documents were actually paid to her, taking into consideration the date of accident and the documents filed by her in support of her income, this court feels that it would be appropriate to fix a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as monthly income of the appellant/claimant.

7. The appellant suffered amputation of left leg at knee level. The evidence available on record would suggest that she was employed as a supervisor under PW2, who was enga