The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for consistency between medical records, evidence, and disability assessment in determining compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 09.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2695 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal (IV SCC), Chennai.

This Cross objection is filed against the award dated 09.10.2014 made made in M.C.O.P.No.2695 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. Elumalai S/o. Subramani aged about 32 years claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the grievous injuries sustained due to the motor accident on 24/09/2012 had preferred MCOP.No.2695 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV Small Causes Court), Chennai.

2. In the claim petition, it was contended that, on 24/09/2012 at about 16.00 hours at E.C.R. Road, Palaiyar Madam, vilambbur, Kancheepuram District, while he was travelling as a pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-19 X 7808, the rider of the two wheeler rash and negligently drove the vehicle in zigzag manner and dashed the right side road wall. Seated on the pillion he sustained multiple grievous injuries. At the time of accident, he was self – employed earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- pm as Carpenter. He was admitted in Pondicherry Institute of Medical Science (PIMS) Hospital, Pondicherry on 24/09/2012 then, referred to Chettinad Hospital, Kelambakkam. From 25/09/2012 to 30/09/2012, he was treated as inpatient. The respondents who are the owner of and it insurer Cross Appeal No.21 of 2016 the vehicle and its insurer are liable to pay compensation since, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the two wheeler driver.

3. The second respondent Insurance Company denied the manner of the accident and its responsibility to indemnify the vehicle owner. As per the FIR, the accident occurred due to the fault of the two wheeler Driver, in which, the claimant was travelling as pillion rider. There is no evidence to show the rider had valid driving license. Further, the accident has not caused any permanent disability to the claimant. He sustained lacerated wound and recovered within 7 days on treatment. Hence, the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant, in support the claim petition, the Doctor who gave the disability certificate and the employer of the claimant were examined as PW-1 to PW-3 respectively. 12 exhibits were marked through them. Based on the FIR ( Ex.P-1) and the evidence of the victim PW-1, the Tribunal held the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler. Relying upon the medical records like OP treatment record, discharge summary, lab reports, and the disability certificate based on X-ray given by PW-2 Doctor who clinically examined the claimant and fixed the claimant had sustained 45% partial permanent disability. Based on the evidence of the employer PW-3, the income of the claimant was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Taking note of pain and suffering and other conventional loss, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,38,453/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% (except Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses) from the date of numbering the claim petition (03/06/2013) till the date of realization.

5. The heads of compensation under which the Tribunal passed award is given below:-

6. The claimant as well as the Insurance company are not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, they are before this Court with this Appea