The court restructured the compensation and confirmed the quantum of compensation based on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and considered the basis of negligence and liability and the admissibility of the rate of interest.

1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal in CMA No.812 of 2006, against the Award and Decree, dated 26.10.2004, passed in M.C.O.P.No.314 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Coimbatore.

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

The claimant stated that on 28.02.2001, at about 11.00 hours, when he was riding his motorcycle on the Avinashi Road, the driver of the Auto bearing registration No. TAB 5616, coming in the same direction and driven at a high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he has filed the claim in MCOP No.314 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

3. The respondent/Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the said Auto had not been covered under a valid policy. Further, it was submitted that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the auto. The averments in the claim regarding nature of injuries, mode of treatment, disability and medical expenses was also not admitted.

4. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues, namely, (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused and did the petitioner sustain injuries in the accident? (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

5. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and 22 documents were marked, namely, First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Discharge Summary, Criminal Court's Judgment, Medical Treatment Particulars, Medical Particulars, Employment Particulars, Estimate for repair of motorcycle, X'rays, Disability Certificate, Registration Letter tendered by the claimant and acceptance of the same by the employer. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was given.

6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 28.02.2001, at about 11.00 a.m, when he was proceeding on his motorcycle on the Avinashi Road, the auto bearing registration No. TNB 5616, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. He deposed that he had sustained injuries, in the accident. He deposed that he had been hospitalised at PSG hospital on the very same day, and that he had undergone treatment, as an impatient. He further stated that he had sustained injuries on his skull and that his skull bone was fractured and that his right eardrum had also been injured. P.W.1, further stated that he had spent a sum of Rs.14,525/- towards medical expenses.

7. P.W.2, Doctor, had adduced evidence that the petitioner has sustained fits and facial palsy due to injuries sustained in the accident and he had certified that the claimant had sustained 50% disability.

8. P.W.3, Welfare Officer, who is attached to the Rangavilas Mills had adduced evidence that after the accident, the claimant did not attend his duty and that he had tendered registration letter and the same had been accepted by the employer.

9. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinizing the documents marked by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,165/-as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

10. The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the claimant had sustained simple injuries, but the Doctor had assessed the disability at 50% which is on the higher side. Further, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and granted compensation, under the head of disability, which is not pertinent in the instant case. Further, in the said accident, two vehicles have been involved and as such, contributory negligence has to be attributed to both the drivers. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award.

11. The highly competent counsel for the claimant a