The main legal point established is that the compensation awarded in motor accident cases should consider the nature of injuries, medical expenses, loss of earning, and other relevant factors to ensure adequate compensation for the claimant.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,89,321/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has filed the appeal.

2. Brief facts are that on 12.1.2015, at 5.15 P.M., the appellant was driving the first respondent's vehicle bearing registration No.TN- 49 N 1950 and when the bus was proceeding at Anna Perumal Koil, the second respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-51 H 7002 came in the opposite direction at a very speed in a rash and negligent manner, without making horn, hit against the bus and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained fracture and also multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was admitted in Government Hospital, Sirkali where from he was transferred to Government Hospital, Cuddalore and then transferred to Vairam Multi Specialty Hospital, Mayiladuthurai.

3. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.13 of 2015 was registered against the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 43 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per months by working as driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Resisting the claim petition, the first respondent filed counter stating that when the first respondent bus was stopped at Annaperumal koil to alight passengers, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-51 H 7002 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus and caused the accident. Therefore, the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the second respondent. It is stated that as the appellant travelled in the bus, the first respondent was added as respondent.

5. Denying the manner of accident, the third respondent filed counter stating that the first respondent bus was driven rashly and negligently by the appellant and dashed against the second respondent's lorry and caused the accident. Hence being a tort-feaser, the appellant cannot claim any compensation for the wrong committed by him. It is stated that the investigation reveals that the appellant is still working as a driver in the first respondent's bus and was earning as before the date of accident. In the accident, the appellant had sustained only simple injuries. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- claimed by the appellant is highly exorbitant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr.R.Venugopal was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents.

7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent's lorry and the third respondent, who is the insurer of the second respondent's lorry is liable to pay compensation. Taking the disability as 30%, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,89,321/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

8. Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while the Tribunal rightly fixing the negligence on the driver of the lorry, failed to award adequate compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant. In fact, the appellant sustained fracture right patella and P.W.2 assessed the disability as 40%. However, the Tribunal erred in taking the disability as 30%. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the loss of income during the treatment period and at least three months loss of income ought to have been considered. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation.

9. Reite