The main legal point established is that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should adequately consider the nature of injuries, age of the victim, and future expenses, and the multiplier method should be applied for assessing loss of income.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned Award dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.465 of 2006.

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

(i) The Appellant sustained grievous injuries on 08.04.2004, as a result of an accident caused by a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-W-3562 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent.

(ii) The Appellant preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.465 of 2006 seeking a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

(iii) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 19.01.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.465 of 2006 directed the second respondent to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 3,53,900/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per Annum from the date of claim till the date of the realisation.

(iv) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Heard, Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs.R.Sree Vidya, learned Counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent being the owner of the tanker lorry has remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant under the impugned Award is an inadequate compensation. According to him, the Appellant had to amputate his left leg, as a result of the accident and he also sustained fracture in his left hand and injuries all over his body. According to him, the Appellant was a minor, aged 15 years at the time of the accident.

5. He would further submit that due to the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant, he was fixed with an artificial limb, due to which, he is unable to lead a normal life as he also lost his future earning capacity. According to him, considering all these factors, the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards pain and suffering, attender charges, future medical expenses to be incurred for replacement of the artificial leg.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, at the time of filing the appeal, the cost of an artificial leg (limb) is Rs. 50,000/. Further he would contend that under the impugned Award, the Tribunal has not adopted the multiplier method in assessing the compensation but, instead, has awarded a meagre lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the injuries and amputation of the leg.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also drew the attention of this Court by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of, Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, reported in, (2014) 1 TNMAC 641 and referred to the compensation awarded by the Honourable Supreme Court for a non-fatal accident under various heads of claim and submitted that applying the principles laid down under the said judgment, the compensation awarded to the Appellant has to be enhanced.

8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is a just compensation. According to her, the Appellant was a minor aged 15 years at the time of the accident. Further she would submit that no evidence has been let in by the Appellant before the Tribunal to prove that he would have suffered loss of future earning capacity and no proof was also filed to prove that the Appellant will have to incur future medical expenses for replacement of his artificial leg. According to her, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is a just compensation.

9. This Court after having considered the