Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Order dated 12.2.1998 made in M.C.O.P.No.522/1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Addl.District Court), Trichy.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 12.2.1998 made in M.C.O.P.No.522/1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Addl.District Court), Trichy, in and by which the learned District Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,200/- against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. Heard Mr. D.Sivaraman for M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Upon hearing the rival claims, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the award amount of Rs.43,200/- towards the head loss of earning power is in order? Point: 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The accident took place on 7.9.1994 at about 6.00p.m. at Trichy – Viralimalai main road, when the bus was proceeding from Madurai to Trichy. At the time of the accident, the injured petitioner was travelling as a passenger in the bus of the respondent bearing No.TN 45 N 0698 from Madurai to Trichy while the driver of the bus drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner at brake neck speed. At the time of occurrence, the bus went out of control and dashed against the road side trees. In the impact of the accident, many persons were injured. 5. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries as follows: 1. Laceration over left eyebrow 2" X ¼" 2. Laceration over left cheek 2" x ¼" 3. Linear laceration overdorsum of left forearm 3"X4"X1/2" 4. Lacerated horizontal cut injury 4" X 1" tendon 5. Laceration over dorsum of medial aspect of right toe ½" 6. Laceration over dorsum of left foot 2" X ¼" 7. Fracture of both bones right leg by lower 1/3" 8. Amputation of toe, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th phalanges right leg. 6. Inspite of best medical treatment, his ailment could not be healed to the satisfaction. He sustained permanent disability. He suffered loss of earning power also. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained to him in the road accident. 7. The respondent filed counter refuting the allegations stating that the claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the application. 8. He sustained permanent disability. He suffered loss of earning power also. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained to him in the road accident. 7. The respondent filed counter refuting the allegations stating that the claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the application. 8. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and two others viz., Ilangovan (Doctor) and S. Abdul Jabbar were examined as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively and 10 exhibits were marked as Ex.P1 to P10 on the side of the petitioner. One Gopal was examined as RW.1 on the side of the respondent to disprove the claim of the petitioner. However, no document was marked on the side of the respondent. 9. The lower Court after analysing the evidence in depth found that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,28,200/- against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- and passed award accordingly. The Tribunal passed the compensation amount as follows: Nutrition Attendant Transport Rs.35,000/- Medical expenses Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Disability Rs.40,000/- Loss of earning power Rs.43,200/- ---------- Total Rs.1,28,200/- ========== 10. The only point now arises for consideration is whether the compensation of Rs.43,200/-towards loss of earning power can sustain? 11. Records would show that the petitioner sustained amputation of toe, 2nd, 3rd and 4th phalanges right leg. Apart from that the claimant suffered multiple injuries all over his body. He also sustained fracture of both bones of right leg by lowering 1/3". It is also admitted that the claimant was employed as a technical assistant on monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. PW.3 spoke about the employment and the monthly salary of the claimant. This fact was also not disputed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the claimant sustained loss of earning power and as such, the award by the lower Court for loss of earning power cannot sustain. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that the claimant has become disabled and crippled and ineligible for a lucrative employment in foreign countries and that the Tribunal has rightly taken note of this point and awarded compensation of Rs.43,200/- for the loss of earning power and as such, the finding of the lower Court in this regard can sustain. 14. I have gone through the reasoning of the lower Court in granting Rs.43,200/- for the loss of earning power. 14. I have gone through the reasoning of the lower Court in granting Rs.43,200/- for the loss of earning power. Admittedly, the claimant is a technical assistant. The claimant is now crippled due to amputation of right toe. Apart from that the claimant's 2nd, 3rd and 4th phalanges right leg amputated. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant relied on the decision held in Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhary and others (2006 ACJ 1941) in support of his claim. I have gone through the principle laid down in the Judgment. 16. Because of the ailment suffered by the claimant as narrated above, naturally, there will be some deficiencies in execution of work by the claimant as technical assistant. So much so, there is less possibility in securing a better job in future, the lower Court, in fact, fixed the loss of earning power at Rs.200/- per month. It cannot be stated to be on the higher side. 17. Taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner coupled with the nature of work of the claimant, I am satisfied that the finding of the lower Court in awarding a sum of Rs.43,200/- for the loss of earning power is in order and it does not require any interference. Hence, I answer this point against the appellant. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.