ORDER :

This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 14.09.2018 passed by IIIrd Additional MACT, Ujjain in Claim Case No.20/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant after referring to Para No.88 of impugned award and Ex.P/144 (Bank Pass Book) submits that from evidence on record, it is clearly established that at the time of accident appellant was working as a Teacher in a Coaching Institute and thereby earning Rs.8500/- per month but learned Tribunal has wrongly determined her monthly income as Rs.5000/- per month. It is also urged that Tribunal has wrongly assessed loss of earning capacity as 60%, whereas in the instant case, it is apparent that appellant?s right hand has been amputated from below shoulder and eye sight of left eye has been completely lost. Therefore, learned Tribunal should have held that there is 100% loss of earning capacity. In this connection, he has relied upon decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sarnam Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 to bolster his submissions. It is also urged that in view of above, the Tribunal has wrongly held physical permanent disability 40%. He has also submitted that insufficient amount has been awarded for loss of amenities. It is also urged that Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.3,07,067/- on account of amount received under medi-claim policy. In this connection, he has relied upon Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aman Sanjay Tak (First Appeal No.1051/2022 dated 12.04.2023). It is also urged that Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future medical expenses.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company after referring to Ex.P/35 and Para 82 of impugned award and deposition of witness PW/4 submits that learned Tribunal has rightly held that appellant has failed to prove that she was earning Rs.8500/- per month. Learned Tribunal has held that on the basis of entries in the bank passbook, it cannot be said that appellant was earning Rs.8500/- per month. It is also urged that from deposition of PW/4 itself, it is established that he is not Director of the Institute. Therefore, at the most, appellant’s monthly income can be assessed as Rs.6000/- per month. It is also urged that Tribunal has rightly held physical disability as 40% and loss of earning capacity as 60%.

Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company after referring to impugned award, especially, Para 101 submits that Tribunal has awarded sufficient amount for loss of amenities, future medical expenses etc and has rightly deducted the amount received on mediclaim as Rs.3,07,067/-. In this connection, he has relied upon decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Manish Gupta (M.F.A.No.6950/2007 dated 11.10.2012).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Factual analysis:

Income:

5. So far as income of appellant is concerned, as per findings recorded by the Tribunal, especially in para-86 & 89, it is clearly established that at the time of accident, appellant was working as Teacher. The accident has occurred on 07.06.2015. It is correct that Tribunal has discarded bank passbook Ex.P/35 and has held that appellant has failed to prove her income as Rs.8500/ - per month. But, if notification issued by Labour Commissioner under Minimum Wages Act is perused, then, it is apparent that on the date of accident minimum wages of a skilled labour was Rs.8,735/- per month. Admittedly, appellant is a Teacher. Hence, her monthly income cannot be assessed less than that of a skilled labour. Hence, in this Court’s opinion, it would be just and proper to determine appellant’s monthly income as Rs.8500/-.

Percentage of PDC:

6. In the instant case, it is establ