1. These appeals were filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 made in MCOP No.880 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, FTC-2 at Poonamalee.

2. When the matter came up for admission, by consent of both parties, both the appeals were taken up for final hearing and disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The injured Velmurugan, met with a motor traffic accident on 16.08.2007 at about 7.12am. The said injured was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN 10/P5505, at GST Road, from West towards East and when he was proceeding towards Nehru Statue Rountana, Guindy, a mini lorry bearing Regn.No.TN09/T4779, came in a rash and negligent manner and also in a high speed in the same direction and hit the two-wheeler from behind and due to the same, he sustained multiple injuries and fracture and claimed compensation of Rs.30,03,000/-. The said mini lorry was insured with the appellant-New India Assurance Company (in CMA No.85 of 2011), who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry bearing Regn. No. TN09/T4779?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation. If so, What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to?"

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,09,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:-

Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,40,400/-

Pain and sufferingsRs. 40,000/-

Mental AgonyRs. 25,000/-

Transportation to Hospital Rs. 1,000/-

Extra NourishmentRs. 3,000/-

------------------

Rs. 11,09,400/-

------------------

Aggrieved by that award, the Insurance Company has filed appeal in CMA No.85 of 2011 and the claimant has also filed CMA No.420 of 2011 for enhancement.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company questioned only the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Further, he contended that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and wrongly adopted the multiplier 17'. Further, it was contended that there is no basis for adopting 85% disability and it was also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, after awarding Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, he contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

5. The Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award and the order passed by the Tribunal in not accordance with law and it is a fit case for enhancement.

6. Heard the counsel and perused the document on record. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. Injured himself was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Balasubramaniam, who treated the injured was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P3 is the copy of the Charge sheet. Ex.P4, is the discharge certificate. Ex.P5, is the medical bills. Ex.P6 is the x-ray and the report. Ex.P7, is the copy of the Driving License. Ex.P8, is the copy of the agreement for running a shop. Ex.P9, is the documents in support of payment of income. Ex.P10, is the certificate in physiotheraphy. Ex.P11, is the copy of the Physiotherapist Member Slip. Ex.P12,