IMPORTANT POINT
Grievous injuries suffered in motor accident – There is no restriction on Tribunal in awarding compensation exceeding claimed amount under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Function of Tribunal is to award just compensation which is reasonable based on evidence produced on record.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from the order dated 20.06.2022 in CMA (MD) No. 3343 of 2014 on the file of the Madras High Court, filed by the Appellant/Claimant for enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,98,017/- (Rupees three lakh ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of III Small Causes, Chennai (“the Tribunal”) to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh).

3. The Appellant’s case is that on 26.01.2012, he was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 22 AU 0784 from Selaiyur to Medavakkam towards the east. At Kamarajapuram junction, a jeep bearing Registration No. TN 22 BL 7032 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction without sounding a horn and hit the Appellant’s motorcycle. The incident owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent, Insurance Company. The Appellant filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakh) as compensation in MCOP No. 2672 of 2013 on the file of the Tribunal.

4. The appeal is filed for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and for the award of the claimed compensation. Therefore, the averments and the evidence on the admitted position are not adverted to as part of the narrative of the case. At the time of the accident, the Appellant was stated to be 21 years of age and was working as an accounts assistant, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The Claimant examined himself as PW1. The doctors who treated the Appellant, Dr. Kalkura and Dr. Saichandran, were examined as PW2 and PW3, respectively. The Tribunal marked 16 documents on the side of the Appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was placed from the side of the Respondents.

5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,98,017/- (Rupees three lakh ninety-eight thousand and seventeen) with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Claimant filed CMA (MD) No. 3343 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court has taken note of the oral evidence of PW2 and PW3, and the extent of disability the first Appellant suffered in the accident. The High Court, through the impugned Judgment, redetermined the compensation. For a quick grasp of the scope of the appeal, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court is stated as follows:

6. The High Court, as part of its consideration of functional disability, held that the Appellant suffered from hemiparesis, disfigurement and brain injuries leading to a 100% loss of earnings due to functional disability. The finding further recorded that the Claimant had not produced any supporting evidence to prove his salary at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The High Court, relying on Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 held that the Claimant cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income and fixed his monthly income at Rs. 6,500/-. The High Court, thus, enhanced the head – “Loss of Earning due to Functional Disability” – to Rs. 12,48,000/- by increasing his income by Rs. 500/- and considering his Functional Disability as 100%.

7. Hence, the appe