The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the court's authority to revise inadequate compensation awards.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai dated 25.09.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.5347 of 1998.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai dated 25.09.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.5347 of 1988 in so far as the disallowed portion of the claim is concerned.

2. The appellant herein had filed the above said MCOP claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-as compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 herein as the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, namely a trailer lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-09 C-9745, for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 210. 1998 at about 2.15 p.m in Nerkundram on the Poonamallee High Road.

3. According to the petition averments, at the time of accident the petitioner was proceeding from Thiruvallur to Chennai in his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-09 E5838. While he was thus proceeding towards Chennai, the above said trailer lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-09 C-9745 which came from behind in the same direction, dashed against the petitioner as the said lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner who sustained grievous injuries was given first aid treatment in the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai and later on he took treatment in a private nursing home called "Padmini Nursing Home" as an in patient from 210. 1998 to 011. 1998. With the further contention that the petitioner was aged about 46 years; that he was employed as a Manager Administration in a private concern called "Nubal (India) Limited" and a part time accountant in "Ravi Fashion Paradise (P) Ltd"; that as such he was having an income of Rs.15,000/-per month as on the date of accident and that despite proper treatment he suffered permanent disability affecting his earning capacity, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 herein.

4. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle, namely the first respondent herein, did not contest the MCOP and chose to remain ex-parte. The second respondent herein alone contested the case by filing a counter affidavit denying petition averments and contending that the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation since the driver of the alleged offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. The second respondent had also denied the petition averments regarding the alleged injuries, nature of injuries and the consequential disability suffered by the petitioner. Contending further that the amount claimed by the appellant/petitioner was highly excessive and exorbitant and that the second respondent had prayed that since the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent, the second respondent had prayed for the dismissal of the MCOP with cost.

5. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues regarding the question of negligence, the appellants/petitioners entitlement to claim compensation and quantum and tried the case. In the trial, five witnesses were examined on the side of the appellant/petitioner as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and fifteen documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 on the side of the appellant herein/claimant, whereas no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents.

6. At the conclusion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal considered the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced by counsel appearing on either side and upon such a consideration, it answered the issue regarding negligence in favour of the appellant/claimant and held that the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry was the cause for the accident. The Tribunal a