The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of providing fair and adequate compensation to victims of accidents, particularly those with permanent disabilities, as emphasized by the Supreme Court decisions referenced in the judgment.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.59 of 2010 dated 09.06.2011 awarding compensation of Rs.14,48,000/-for the injuries sustained by the 1st Respondent-Claimant.

2. Brief facts are that on 20.02.2010, in the midnight at 1.00 P.M., 1st Respondent-Claimant was driving the Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.TN-23 AT 6367. When the Car was proceeding near Vaniyambadi in Coimbatore-Salem NH-47 main road at about 3.30 A.M. in Chittode IRTT junction, 407 van bearing registration No.TN-33 AP 6102 came in the opposite direction from south to north driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the Tata Indica Car. Due to the accident, Claimant sustained severe head injuries, deformity in right thigh, fracture in right knee, fracture in right femur. There was a contusion in his temporal region and the Claimant became unconscious. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Erode. After first aid treatment in Erode Government Hospital, Claimant was admitted in Salem Vinayaga Mission Hi-Tech Hospital. Regarding the accident a Criminal Case in Crime No.80/2010 of Chittode Police Station was registered against the van driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. At the time of accident, Claimant was working as driver and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident was on 20.02.2010. Within one month thereafter the Claim Petition was filed. At the time of filing of Claim Petition, Claimant-Venkatesan @ Maayan was unconscious and not in a position to take care of himself. Hence, Claim Petition came to be filed by the wife-Deepa representing the Claimant.

3. Denying the manner of accident, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that 407 van [TN-33 AP 6102] driver was not rash and negligent and only the Claimant was driving the Tata Indica Car in a negligent manner. The owner of Tata Indica Car which the Claimant was driving and the Insurance Company ought to have been impleaded as Respondents. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the age, occupation and income of the 1st Respondent-Claimant.

4. In the Tribunal, wife of the Claimant-Deepa was examined as PW1. Eye-witness-Dakshinamurthy was examined as PW2. Dr.P.Ramakrishnan, who issued Ex.P14-Disability certificate was examined as PW3. Dr.A.D.Sampathkumar, who issued Ex.P17-Disability certificate was examined as PW4. Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.

5. Upon consideration of evidence of eye-witness PW2-Dakshinamurthy, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of 407 van [TN-33 AP 6102] driver. Criminal Case in STC.No.186 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode was also registered against the van driver. Ex.P4-charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittode Police Station against the van driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. As is seen from Ex.P5-copy of judgment in STC.No.186 of 2010 (17.05.1020) on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, the van driver has admitted the offence and paid the fine. Based upon Exs.P1, P4 and P5 and evidence of PW1Deepa and also PW2-eyewitness, Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver. The said finding is based upon the evidence and unassailable. Only quantum of compensation is under challenge.

6. Quantum of compensation - Deceased was working as driver and he was getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-and since Claimant was unable to sit, Tribunal has taken the permanent disability at 90%. Adopting multiplier ‘17’, Tribunal has calculated Rs.9,18,000/- for permanent disability. Based upon Ex.P9-series medical bills, Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for medical expenses and awarding compensation for other heads, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.14,48,000/-.

7. Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for Appellant