The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to restructure and modify the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal based on the assessment of relevant factors and considerations.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 25.03.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.47 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 21.11.2005, at around 11.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle on the Hosur to Bangalore National Highways Road, when at that point of time, the first respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.KA25-A-3307, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist, as a result, the claimant had sustained grievous multiple bone fracture injuries, hence the claimant had filed this claim petition for compensation against the respondents for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-with interest.

3. The second respondent had filed a counter statement and stated that the wound certificate says that the petitioner was riding bicycle during night time. Hence, even if there was an accident that must be due to negligent riding of bicycle i.e., without light in the bicycle by the petitioner. The respondent denied the income, age and occupation and medical expenses. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

4. On the pleas of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;

“(i)Whether the rash and negligent driving of the respondent's driver caused the accident?

(ii)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? If so what is the quantum?”

5. On the side of the claimant three witnesses had been examined viz., PW1-Vincent / claimant, PW2-Murugesan, PW3-Dr.G.Ashok Kumar and nine documents were marked viz., Ex.A1-First Information Report, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Discharge Summary, Ex.A4-Insurance Policy, Ex.A5-Medical Bills, Ex.A6-Travel Bills, Ex.A7-Artificial leg purchased bill, Ex.A8-Disability Certificate and Ex.A9-Estimation of artificial leg.

On the side of the respondent no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that he was proceeding on his bicycle on 21.11.2005, at around 11.00 p.m., on the Hosur to Bangalore National Highways, when at that time, the first respondent's lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. A case was registered against the driver of the offending lorry. PW2 spoke on a similar version of the accident. PW1 further stated that his left leg was amputated due to the accident. He was employed at a Private Spinning Mill and was earning a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to continue his job. He further stated that he has now artificial limb and due to the amputation he now cannot walk, squat and stand, besides he had sustained head injuries and also injuries to his left ankle, knee, both shoulders and right hand elbow. PW3 doctor had assessed the disability stating that the claimant had sustained 70% disability, after examining the claimant and verifying the medical records. On the side of the respondent there is no witness and no document.

7. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.11,51,583/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. This compensation comprising of the following heads:-

Rs.72,000/- towards loss of earnings for family members;

Rs.10,000/- for transport to hospital and extra nourishment;

Rs.500/- for damage to clothes;

Rs.54,500/- towards future medical expenses for artificial limb;

Rs.5,000/- for attender charges;

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony

Rs.70,000/- for permanent disability;

Rs.7,13,034/- towards loss of earning power;

Rs.1,76,548/- for medical expenses

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal for scaling down the compensation.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7,13,034/- towards loss of earning power, after adopting the multiplier method, w