The court recognized the principle of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering total permanent disability and loss of income to award enhanced compensation.

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.09.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Kumbakonam.

2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2004 and he claimed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs (subsequently by amendment, the same was enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs) for injury sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 19.08.2004.

3. According to the appellant, he was travelling in a Hero Honda Motorcycle as a pillion rider. One Mohan was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. In order to avoid the lorry coming in the opposite direction, the said Mohan suddenly turned his vehicle at high speed. Due to that, the appellant was thrown out and suffered grievous injuries on his head and left shoulder. A complaint was given against the driver of the lorry and a case has been registered. He was admitted in the hospital and spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and therefore, he claimed total sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex-parte.

4. The second respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant and stated that the injury suffered by the appellant is only simple injury and the appellant was in a drowsy mood and therefore, fell down from the motor-bike and suffered injuries. In any event, the amount claimed by the appellant is excessive. The second respondent also stated that the first respondent was not owner and the vehicle was not duly insured.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and one Doctor Srinivasan and Doctor Sundar were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked 21 documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21. The second respondent did not let-in any oral and documentary evidence. The Doctor P.W.2 gave disability certificate Ex.A.19 with regard to the injury on the chest and left shoulder at 20%. P.W.3 Doctor, who is a Neuro Surgeon gave a disability certificate as Ex.A.21 at 80% with regard to the head injury.

6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments, came to the conclusion that the driver of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident. The learned Judge held that the appellant joined duty in the police department and therefore, fixed liability with regard to the injuries on head only at 30% and for injury at chest and shoulder at 20% and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each for injury suffered in chest, shoulder and head. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Total sum of Rs.2 lakhs was awarded. Against the said award, the present C.M.A is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the grievous nature of injuries caused and suffered by the appellant in the accident. The learned Judge erred in reducing the disability percentage to 30% to the brain, when the competent Neuro Surgeon certified at 80%. The Tribunal erred in awarding one lakh towards medical expenses, while the appellant produced the medical bills and substantiated his claim for Rs.1,20,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to injuries suffered by the appellant, medical board certified him as unfit to continue in service. The department declared him as invalid and Superintendent of Police by order dated 13.11.2006, declared him as unfit to hold the post of Head Constable and he was granted only invalid pension. The learned counsel for the appellant filed an application for filing additional documents to substantiate the claim that the appellant was relieved from service and was granted invalid pension. The said application was allowed. The document is taken on file and marked as A2. In view of the subsequent development, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellan