Liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and recover the same from the vehicle owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Abdul Quddhose, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 18.03.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Small Causes Court III Judge) at Chennai in MCOP. No. 695 of 2006.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows:

(i) The first respondent sustained injuries on 01.12.2004 as a result of an accident caused by a Van bearing Registration No. TN04 E 2320 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant.

(ii) The first respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP. No. 695 of 2006, seeking a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

(iii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 18.03.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.695 of 2006, directed the Appellant to pay the first respondent a sum of Rs. 2,24,500/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization.

3. Aggrieved by the Award dated 18.03.2007, passed in MCOP No.695 of 2006, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

4. Heard, Mr.J.Chandran, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan, learned Counsel for the first respondent.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the compensation awarded to the first respondent under the impugned Award is excessive. According to him, the compensation awarded under various heads viz., loss of income, transportation, medical expenses, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, pain and suffering and disability is excessive and not in accordance with the settled principles of law.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent sustained pelvic bone fracture and also sustained injuries in her private organ. According to him, at the time of the accident, the first respondent was 24 years old and was employed as foot wear final stitcher earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,800/-. According to him, even though, the first respondent has claimed that he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,800/- at the time of the accident, but the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the Appellant only at Rs. 3,000/-. According to him, considering the avocation and the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is a just compensation.

7. This Court after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after hearing the submissions of the respective Counsels observes the following:

(a) In the instant appeal, the Appellant has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as its liability.

(b) The Tribunal under the impugned Award has given a categorical finding that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle, the accident had happened which resulted in injuries sustained by the first respondent.

(c) The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation Rs. 2,24,500/- as compensation to the first respondent as detailed below:

S.No.	Head	Amount awarded by the Tribunal
1	Loss of income for 4 months at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- p.m.	Rs.12,000/-
2	Transportation	Rs.7,000/-
3	Extra nourishment	Rs.10,000/-
4	Damage to clothes	Rs.500/-
5	Medical expenses	Rs.5,000/-
6	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-
7	Disability of 70% at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per disability	Rs.1,40,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,24,500/-

(d) Considering the age, year of the accident and the first respondent's avocation, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the first respondent is a just compensation.

(e) It has been the consisten