The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of injuries, claimant's occupation, age, and relevant legal precedents in determining compensation for motor vehicle accident victims.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and Judgment dated 22nd day of June 2018 made in MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award and decree dated 22.06.2018, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal:

2. The first respondent sustained injuries on 08.07.2013 as a result of an accident caused by a Tata Lorry Eicher bearing registration No.TN. 70 B 6289 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant. On 08.07.2013, when the first respondent was riding a Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing registration No.KA 41-W-1682 from Bangalore to Mecheri along with his friend Ravi, who was the pillion rider, a Tata Lorry Eicher bearing registration No.TN 70-B-6289 owned by the second respondent and insured with the Appellant which was coming in the opposite direction hit against the two wheeler which caused grievous injuries to the first respondent who was the rider of the two wheeler.

3. The first respondent preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.2, Salem, in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013 against the Appellant as well as the second respondent seeking a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of the accident.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by a common award dated 22.06.2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1525 of 2013 and M.C.O.P.No.1526 of 2013, directed the Appellant to pay the first respondent, the rider of the motor cycle, a sum of Rs.19,33,637/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization excluding the period from 18.01.2016 to 18.08.2016 being the period when the claim petition was not restored to file of the Tribunal after it was dismissed for default on 18.01.2016.

5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.1525 of 2013 , the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

6. Heard Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the first respondent. Despite service of notice on the second respondent, there is no representation on the side of the second respondent.

Discussion:

7. The only ground raised by the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the functional disability of the first respondent at 56.33% and ought not to have applied the multiplier method while assessing the compensation. It is their case that without any documentary evidence to prove that the first respondent has suffered functional disability, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the functional disability of the first respondent as a result of the injury sustained by him at 56.33%.

8. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has sustained the following injuries as a result of the accident caused by the insured vehicle:

(i). Polytrauma

(ii).Comminuted segmental fracture right shaft of femur

(iii).Right leg both bones

(iv).Undisplaced fracture neck of femure

(v).Fracture inferior public ramus

(vi).Multiple facial bone fractures

(vii).Periocular soft tissue injury.

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the first respondent, the assessment of his functional disability at 56.33% by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The first respondent was a building contractor at the time of the accident. The Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of his work while assessing his functional disability on account of the injuries sustained by him. The injuries sustained by the first respondent has not made him an invalid person, though his mobility has been restric