The court's reassessment of the compensation amount based on the evidence and submissions.

1. The appellant/second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.753 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Kanchipuram.

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

The petitioner had filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.753 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Kanchipuram, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

3. It was submitted that on 13.02.2000, at about 09.45 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in a Fiat Uno Car bearing registration No.TN21 C3006, from Chennai to Kanchipuram, along with her family members. When the car was proceeding on Sriperumbudur Bye Pass Road i.e., G.W.T. Road on the extreme left and when it was near Poornima Petrol Bunk, the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No. TSH 5857, which was proceeding ahead of the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and was turned suddenly towards the right side of the road without giving any indication and consequently dashed against the front of the car. As a result, the front portion of the car was fully damaged and the petitioner, her husband and also their clerk had sustained grievous injuries. She was admitted at Miot Hospital at Porur, wherein first aid was given and subsequently admitted at St.Thomas Hospital, wherein a surgery was conducted. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is not able to walk, stand or sit and not able to do her normal routine work as before. Hence, the petitioner had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TSH 5857.

4. The second respondent, in their counter statement, had submitted that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of the driver of the car bearing registration No.TN21 C3006, who had driven it at a high speed and dashed it against the lorry proceeding ahead of the car. It was submitted that the accident could have been averted if the driver of the car had driven the car at a moderate speed and in a cautious manner. It was submitted that as the first respondent's lorry driver did not have a valid licence at the time of accident, the conditions of policy of insurance had been violated and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely:

i. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No. TSH 5857? and

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

6. In the same accident, the husband of the petitioner herein namely Premkumar had also filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.754 of 2000, against the same respondents, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. On the request made by the counsels for their respective petitioners, through a joint memo, a joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded.

7. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.Nos.754 and 753 of 2000 were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and one Dr. N.O. Samson was examined as P.W.3 and 261 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P261 namely copy of FIR, copy of accident register, copy of M.V.I's report, discharge summaries issued by St.Thomas Hospital to P.W.1, copy of driving licence of P.W.1, copy of charge sheet, copy of I.D. Card, copy of PAN Card, doctor certificate, prescriptions, payment receipts, medicine bills, lab receipts, car rent receipts, receipts issued by Hariharan, acknowledgment issued by Income Tax Department, Auditor's letter, Bar Association I.D. Card, X'ray and disability certificate. On the respondents' side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and six documents wer