The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity in determining the compensation amount in motor accident claims.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which figured as the 2nd respondent in MACTOP No.3949 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [II Judge, Court of Small Causes], Chennai.

2. The 1st respondent herein had filed the above said MACTOP before the Tribunal claiming initially a sum of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, which took place on 21.00 hrs. On 10.8.2005, involving the motor vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent herein that stood insured with the appellant herein. Subsequently, during the pendency of the MCOP, the Claim Petition was amended and the claim was increased to Rs.12 lakhs from Rs.7 lakhs. The claim was made on the basis of the plea that the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 23 A 0356 in which the 1st respondent was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver as a result of which the 1st respondent herein/claimant sustained multiple injuries; that for the consequences of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver, the 2nd respondent herein, viz., the owner of the vehicle, was liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/injured claimant; that since according to the 1st respondent/claimant, the said vehicle was insured with the appellant Company as on the date of the accident, the appellant Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insurer, viz., the 2nd respondent herein, and that by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said contract of insurance was enforceable by the 1st respondent/claimant. Thus, the claim was made against both the second respondent and the appellant herein.

3. The owner of the vehicle, viz., the 2nd respondent herein, remained ex parte and did not contest the case. The appellant/Insurance Company, which figured as the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, contested the case not only on the grounds available under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but also on all grounds of defence available to the insured, after getting necessary order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, permitting it to raise such pleas.

4. During trial, three witness were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19 on the side of the claimant. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents in the MACTOP [the 2nd respondent herein and the appellant herein]. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of the Tribunal contains the list of witnesses examined on the side of the petitioner/injured stating that only two witnesses were examined, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, whereas actually three witnesses were examined.

5. At the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo vehicle by its driver; that the Tata Sumo vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the 2nd respondent herein and it stood covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant herein and that hence the 2nd respondent and the appellant were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/injured.

6. The Tribunal took the age of the claimant to be 38 years, at the time of the accident and took the income of the injured claimant before the accident to be Rs.5,000/-per month. Arriving at a conclusion that the 1st respondent/injured had suffered 100% partial permanent disability, the Tribunal applied the multiplier method, selected 16 to be the appropriate multiplier and arrived a sum of Rs.9,60,000/-as compensation towards permanent disability and loss of earning power. More amount was awarded on other heads also and ultimately, the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.11,53,000/- to be the reasonable compensation to which the 1st respondent/injured would be entitled. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent and the appellant her