The Court considered the nature of injuries, impact on the petitioner's life, and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to determine fair compensation.

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 13.08.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.1159 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,23,088/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to scale down the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.

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

On 09.04.2002, at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner was walking near Radharani Theatre, Singanallur at Trichy road. At that time, a person, who is the employee of the first respondent was coming in the first respondents motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37 U7007, at Trichy road, Coimbatore, west to east, without observing the traffic rules, at a high speed and without giving horn, dashed against the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries on the right and left forehands, on head, right side of the forehead, eye and on both knees. Immediately, the petitioner was rushed to Richmond Hospital. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 18 years and he was a student. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is unable to concentrate on his study as before the said accident. The petitioner further stated that he was ranking first in his class. The said accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-to the petitioner.

4. Regarding the said accident a case was registered by the TIW (East) Police Station, Coimbatore in Crime No.93/2002.

5. The second respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The second respondent denied that the accident had happened on 09.04.2002, at about 04.30 p.m. near Radha Rani Theatre, Singanallur at Trichy Road. The second respondent did not admitted the age, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, period of treatment undergone. Further, the petitioner has alleged that he was a student at the time of the said accident, for which he has to produce sufficient documents. At the time of accident, the petitioner was not an earning person. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of income, Rs.25,000/- for partial loss of income, Rs.10,000/- for treatment, Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/-for transport expenses, Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability are all not pertinent under the above mentioned heads. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition, which is not maintainable.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Who is responsible for the said accident? Whether, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, by whom the compensation amount has to be paid?

(ii) What is the quantum of compensation?

7. The second respondent has filed a petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and sought a permission to defend the case on behalf of the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37 U7007. The said application in I.A.No.96 of 2004 was allowed on 30.01.2004. As such, the second respondent contested the case on behalf of the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN37 U7007.

8. On the petitioners side two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and ten documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P10. On the side of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

9. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The PW1, in his eviden