The main legal point established is the confirmation of negligence based on valid documentary evidence and the court's authority to modify and reduce compensation awards.

1. The challenge in these appeals by the Insurance Company is to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (6th Court of Small Causes), Chennai, made in MCOP No. 1179 and 1180 of 2011, granting a sum of Rs. 48,00,000/- to the claimant in MCOP No. 1179 of 2011 and Rs. 30,00,000/- to the claimant in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011 as compensation for the injuries suffered by them in the motor accident that occurred on 21.02.2011.

2. The case of the claimants, who are husband and wife, before the Tribunal is that on 21.02.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. when claimant in MCOP No. 1179 of 2011 was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 20 AF 9439 from Tiruthani to Tiruvallur along with the claimant in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011 as a pillion rider, the private bus, bearing Registration No. TN 55 P 0814, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance Company, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motor cycle were severally injured. While the claimant in MCOP 1179 of 2011, namely the rider suffered multiple fracture of the right fumur bone, a blunt injury in the right shoulder, fracture of the right collar bone, multiple fracture of the hip bone, fracture of the right hand index finger and cut injuries in the right hand middle finger along with grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011, the pillion rider had suffered communited fracture of right femur bone with heavy loss of soft tissue on the right thigh, right ankle and cut injuries in the fingers.

3. The claimants would further contend that both of them had suffered great deal of pain because of the injuries caused. Apart from incurring medical expenses, they had also lost their earning power because of the immobilisation caused due to the fractures sustained in the accident. Thus, the claimants had sought for a compensation of Rs. 48,00,000/- in MCOP No. 1179 of 2011 and a compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011, in the claim petition, namely the owner of the bus remained ex-parte.

4. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle. It was also contended that the rider of the Motor Cycle did not have the valid driving license on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company also denied the age, occupation, income, nature of injuries and the details of treatment.

5. Since both the Claim Petitions arose out of the same accident they were taken up together for disposal by the tribunal. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record particularly, the FIR marked as Ex.P2 and the Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P3, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the driver of the bus had admitted guilt before the Criminal Court as evidenced by Ex.P8. The Tribunal also held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation since the existence of insurance cover was not denied.

6. On the quantum, the Tribunal found that the claimant in MCOP No. 1179 of 2011 had suffered a disability of about 65%. Insofar as the claimant in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011 is concerned the Tribunal fixed the disability at 50%. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant in MCOP No. 1179 of 2011 at Rs. 18,500/- added 50% towards future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18 and arrived at the loss of earning capacity at Rs. 38,96,100/- being 65% of the total loss of earning capacity. Insofar as the claimant in MCOP No. 1180 of 2011 is concerned, the Tribunal took her income at Rs. 10,000/- per month adding 50% towards future prospects and applying a multiplier 18, the Tribunal arrived