The Court considered the nature of injuries and evidence presented to grant additional compensation, emphasizing the assessment of medical expenses and the impact of the injuries on the petitioner's life.

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Award and Decree, dated 19.07.2000, made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvannamalai, awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Having not been satisfied with the award and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying for enhancement of compensation, a sum of Rs.85,000/- together with interest and costs.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was aged about 20 years old, an agriculturist and thereby he was earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month at the time of accident. On 15.05.1997 at about 03.00 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding from his residence to ration shop, at that time, the first respondents vehicle bearing registration No.TNI7637, which was insured with the second respondent/ The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Thiruvannamalai, driven by its driver from Vellore to Thiruvannamalai and coming behind the petitioners cycle, who was riding his cycle and dashed against him, resulting in, the petitioner fell down from his cycle and sustained head injury and blood injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to Government Hospital at Thiruvannamalai and then he was referred to CMC Hospital at Vellore. The petitioner spent about Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. After the accident he is unable to pursue his normal duty. Hence, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondents.

4. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The second respondent stated that the petitioner has to prove, age, avocation, income and nature of injuries, period of treatment, permanent disability, medical expenses and other expenses. The second respondent further stated that the petitioner has to prove the existing policy, valid driving licence and permit. The driver of the car is the necessary party to this claim petition. The respondent further stated that no such accident has occurred. The first respondents driver is not responsible for the accident. In fact the petitioner had ridden his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. There is no permanent disability sustained by the petitioner in the said accident. The claim amount is excessive, hence, the second respondent prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Who is responsible for the accident?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much he is entitled to?

(iii)Who is liable to pay the compensation amount?

6. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the respondents side no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

7. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P1. The complaint was given by one Selvaraj and he was not examined before the Tribunal. The Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report was marked as Ex.P2, which indicates that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects. The copy of the Accident Register is marked as Ex.P3. In pursuance of the Ex.P1, the Investigation Agency had investigated the matter and filed a Charge Sheet against the first respondents driver. The first respondents driver himself had pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount, Ex.P4 proves the same. The PW1 had adduced evidence that he was proceeding on his bicycle from north to south on the eastern side of the road. At that time, the first respondents vehicle came from behind and dashed against him. Considering the PW1 evidence and Exs.P1 to P4, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the acciden