The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of disability and the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.95 of 2008 dated 31.01.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. [This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing]

1. This Appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam) in MCOP.No.95 of 2008.

2. Heard Mrs.K.Sindhiya, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.V.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the third respondent. Despite service of notice on the respondent 4 and 5, there is no representation on their side.

3. The Appellant/claimant sustained injuries as a result of an accident which took place on 24.1.2005 caused by a vehicle owned by the fourth respondent. He preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the respondents on the ground that the first respondent was a previous owner of the vehicle who had sold the vehicle to the third respondent who in turn, has sold the vehicle to the fourth respondent and that the second respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. It is also their case that the fifth respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

4. The Tribunal under the impugned award exonerated the first, second and third respondents from any liability and directed the fourth and fifth respondents jointly and severally to pay the Appellant/claimant a sum of Rs.2,13,362/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of deposit and costs in the following manner:

5. The Appellant/claimant has not questioned the exoneration of the liability of the first to third respondents by the Tribunal and is aggrieved only with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award.

6. Before the Tribunal, the Appellant/claimant has filed 21 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and one witness was examined namely the Appellant/claimant himself as PW1. On the side of the respondents, neither any document was filed nor any witness examined before the Tribunal.

7. The only issue that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the Appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation or not.

8. The Appellant/claimant has sustained the following injuries namely (a) fracture at humerus with Radial nerve palsy, (b) compound communited fracture of bone both left leg (c) loss of upper incisor and (d) grievous injuries all over his body as result of an accident. He was hospitalised for five periods namely (a) from 24.12.2005 to 13.02.2006 as per Ex.P4, discharge summary, (b) from 04.03.2006 to 13.03.2006 as per Ex.P5, discharge summary, (c) from 23.03.2006 to 27.03.2006 as per Ex.P6, (d) from 28.03.2006 to 05.04.2006 as per Ex.P7, discharge summary (e) from 11.01.2011 to 13.01.2011 as per Ex.P18, discharge summary and also underwent surgeries. As seen from the evidence available on record, the respondents have not disputed the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant/claimant and they have also not disputed the period of hospitalisation. The special commissioner for disabled, chennai has issued a disability certificate in favour of the Appellant/claimant which was marked as Ex.P14 before the Tribunal which discloses that the Appellant/claimant had sustained 70% disability due to the injuries susta