(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1412 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Special Sub Judge, Tirunelveli) dated 11.12.2025.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1412 of 2021 dated 11.12.2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court dealing with MCOP cases, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant / claimant, who was awarded with compensation of Rs.4,28,112/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twelve only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment for the disability sustained by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 28.08.2020, challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal and claimed enhancement of the

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries, including bilateral superior pubic rami fracture involving the pelvic bones, due to which she is facing difficulties relating to the bladder and urethra and is also more prone to pelvic haemorrhage. According to the learned counsel, the injuries sustained by the appellant are irreversible in nature and the complications arising therefrom include chronic pelvic pain, impaired mobility, sexual dysfunction and deep vein thrombosis. He would further submit that the appellant was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and that the fracture sustained by her has seriously affected her routine lifestyle, as she finds it difficult to bend down and return to a normal position. It is further submitted that the appellant has lost her normal gait due to the fracture in the hip and that she is unable to properly stretch or fold her left hand, which has become shortened and its movement completely restricted, thereby compelling her to depend solely upon her right hand for all her day-to-day needs. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellant was working as a beedi rolling worker and that after the accident, she is unable to sit for a long time with folded legs and, in view of the restricted movement of one of her hands, she has become unfit even to carry on her day-to-day activities.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in awarding only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability. He would contend that though the appellant had lost her employment for more than one year, resulting in loss of monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal had awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- under various heads, namely pain and suffering, loss of convenience, loss of amenities, damages to clothes and articles, transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment, and that the award passed by the Tribunal is highly arbitrary and therefore liable to be interfered with.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant had suffered bilateral superior pubic rami fracture, fracture roof of left acetabulum, comminuted  fracture left clavicle and fracture mandible. The appellant has produced the discharge summary issued by Thiraviam Orthopaedic Hospital, wherein, it has been certified that the injuries suffered by the appellant are grievous in nature. It is pertinent to note that the appellant failed to appear before the Medical Board for assessing the disability. Most importantly, the learned trial Judge has specifically observed that the learned counsel for the appellant had dispensed with the appearance before the Medical Board for assessing disability. Since the appellant had knowingly failed to appear before the Medical Board, the Tribunal, taking note of the grievous nature of the injuries suffered by her, proceeded to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability and as such, the same cannot be found fault with.

6. The Tribunal, considering the medical bills produced, has rightly awarded Rs.2,85,112/- towards medical expenses. No doubt, the appellant has stated that she was doing beedi rolling work before the accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but admittedly, the appellant has not produced any iota of evidence to show her avocation and the income received. The Tribunal, by observing that even as a labour could earn Rs.300/- per day, was inclined to fix a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as monthly notional income and taking note of the injuries suffered and the period of treatment, granted loss of income for two months at Rs.18,000/-and the same also cannot be faulted.

7. No doubt, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, loss of convenience, loss of amenities, damages to clothes and articles, transport charges, attendant charges and extra nourishment. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has not proved that she suffered disability. As already pointed out, considering the fact that the injuries suffered are grievous in nature, the Tribunal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and apart from that, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.25,000/- for the said heads. In the absence of proving any disability, the question of granting amounts separately for the said heads does not arise at all.

8. Considering the above, the total compensation awarded at Rs.4,28,112/- is very much reasonable and the same is not liable to be interfered with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the appeal is of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.