The court's decision was influenced by the assessment of notional income and permanent disability in determining the quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tindivanam, in M.C.O.P.No.518 of 2009 at Rs.23,60,269/-for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant -Devaraj, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts are that on 04.05.2009 at about 22.00 hours, when the claimant/first respondent was returning along with his family members from Alathur in his vehicle bearing Regn. No.PY 01 TEM/H-1427, near Alathur Koot Road, the vehicle dashed against the tamarind tree and capsized as the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the accident, the claimant and his family members sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to PIMS Hospital, Pondicherry and thereafter, referred to JIPMER, Pondicherry and then to Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. A case was registered in Crime No.377 of 2009 on the file of Marakanam Police Station for the offences under Sections 247, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent, the injured claimant has filed the claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.25 lakhs.

3. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant insurance company as well as the second respondent/owner of the vehicle filed counter affidavits before the Tribunal. In her counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and he drove the vehicle cautiously. The second respondent also stated that the appellant insurance company alone is liable to pay compensation. In their counter affidavit, the appellant insurance company denied the age, occupation and income of the claimant/first respondent. The appellant insurance company also denied the manner of accident.

4. In respect of the very same accident, five more claim petitions have been filed and they were all taken up together by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Apart from the claimant, 9 more witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P35 were marked. On the opposite side, R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent's driver and that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. At the time of accident, the injured claimant was aged 24 years and working as driver and he was also doing tailoring work. As per Ex.P12 – Disability Certificate, the claimant suffered 90% permanent disability. Taking the income of the injured claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month and adopting 17 multiplier, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of income as Rs.22,03,200/- (Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 17 x 90/100 = Rs.22,03,200/-). The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.23,60,269/- as under:

Loss of income Rs.22,03,200/-

Pain and suffering, medical expenses, extranourishment, damages to clothing and articles and transportation charges Rs. 1,50,000/-

Medical expenses Rs. 7,069/-

Total Rs.23,60,269/-

6. Challenging the said award, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.23,60,269/- as compensation. He would further submit that in the absence of any proof for income and occupation, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the accident occurred in the year 2009 and at that time, the notional income for a driver/tailor would have been less than Rs.400/- per day.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the claimant was a driver and was earning more than Rs.1