ORDER
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Since the Appeal and the Cross Objection arise from the very same award of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. CMA. No: 993 of 1997 is preferred by M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., questioning the quantum determined by the Tribunal in MACTOP. No: 2413 of 1995, dated 27.2.1997. Admittedly, the Appellant has not obtained permission U/s.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to contest the claim on all aspects. In such circumstances, as per the decision of the Supreme Court (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rahtagi and Ors.), the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. Coming to the Cross Objection filed by the injured-claimant, in view of the latest Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Sathiyanarayanan and Anr., reported in 2005 (1) L.W. 358, we constrain to dispose of the same on merits.
4. In respect of the grievous injuries sustained, the Cross Objector-claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs in the Claim Petition. The Tribunal based on the materials placed, passed an Award for Rs.3 Lakhs. For the balance amount, the claimant has preferred this Cross Objection. Learned Counsel for the claimant after taking us through the discussion relating to quantum of compensation, determined by the Tribunal would submit that considering the avocation and the disablement sustained, the claimant is entitled for higher compensation than that of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The only point for consideration in this Cross Appeal is Whether the claimant is entitled for further enhancement of the award amount as claimed?
6. It is seen from the evidence of the claimant that due to the accident, he sustained a fracture in his left leg and hip and also sustained injury on his left leg. Initially, he had treatment at Vijaya Hospital and a rod has been inserted. Ex.P.1, discharge summary, issued by MIOT Hospital shows that he had treatment from 16.6.1995 to 26.6.1995 as in-patient. Thereafter, according to him, he took treatment as out-patient. Ex.P.2 supports the above version. It is also his claim that even after treatment for a considerable time, he could not attend to his work. It is his further case that he is doing business in old iron scrap materials and by doing the same, he was getting a sizable income. The Tribunal analysing his evidence regarding income after holding that it would be possible for him to earn at least Rs.5,000/= per month, granted Rs.25,000/= towards loss of income during treatment period. We also agree with the same.
7. The Tribunal has granted Rs.1,500/= towards transport charges, which is also reasonable and acceptable. Though the claimant has prayed for Rs.11,000/= towards expenses for nutritious food, taking note of the fact that he had treatment for a period of Six months, a sum of Rs.5000/= was granted under the said head. This is also reasonable and acceptable. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,000/= towards damage to his Scooter as against the claim of Rs.2,500/= which is also acceptable.
8. Based on medical receipts and taking note of the fact that the injured-claimant had treatment between 14.6.1995 and 26.6.1995 at MIOT Hospital as in-patient and as per the amount claimed in the Claim Petition, The Tribunal has awarded Rs.72,500/= for medical expenses, which is also reasonable and acceptable.
9. In view of the fact that the injured-claimant had treatment as in-patient and for the inconvenience caused to the members of the family, the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/=. Taking note of the fact that even after the treatment, it would be difficult for him to go to various places by using cycle, for which he has to incur additional expenditure, and on that basis, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/=, which is also acceptable.
10. As against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/= towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/=. The learned counsel for the Cross Objector-claimant would submit that taking note of the nature of injuries and period of treatment as in-patient as well as the insertion of steel plate etc., the Tribunal ought to have granted more. Though there is some force in the said contention, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/= on behalf of the family members of the injured-claimant for mental agony and strain undergone, we are not inclined to grant any further amount. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1-injured claimant, Dr. R. Thiagarajan, who assessed his disability was also examined as P.W.2. The said Doctor assessed his disability to the extent of 60%. Considering his age, all other family circumstances, and taking note of the evidence of P.W.2, the Tribunal has granted Rs.60,000/= towards permanent disability. Though it is claimed that the claimant is entitled for further amount, in the absence of definite information that the injured was completely disabled after the accident due to the disability referred above, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.60,000/= fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
11. The Tribunal has granted Rs.90,000/= towards loss of earning capacity. Even according to the Tribunal, due to the accident and disability sustained, the claimant has suffered loss to certain extent and as discussed earlier, he is not completely disabled from doing any work. Taking note of the fact, nature of injuries, permanent disability etc., the Tribunal has rightly fixed Rs.90,000/= towards loss of earning capacity. On going through the above materials, we are satisfied that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no valid ground for enhancement of compensation as claimed in the Cross Appeal.
12. In the light of what is stated above, we hold that the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the claimant is also dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.