The main legal point established is the assessment of disability and compensation for motor accident injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2013, dated 26.11.2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Tiruchengode.)

(The case has been heard through video conferencing)

1. The Appellant herein was injured in a motor accident on 03/04/2013 at about 01.00 P.M and sustained fracture of his right leg and cut injury in his right finger. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District and then shifted to a private Hospital at Thiruchengodu. He was treated as in-patient between 03/04/2013 and 17/04/2013 for his comminuted fracture D-3 Femur (R), comminuted fracture fibula (R) and PCL Avulsion fracture-fracture fibular neck (R). After surgery, he was discharged on 17/04/2013. The appellant was about 30 years old at the time of accident. Claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident he preferred petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Thiruchengodu.

2. The Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, awarded Rs.2,10,834/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of institution of the claim till the date of payment.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant contented that he was weaver by profession running a weaving unit on lease. His monthly income is about Rs.10,000/-. Due to the accident, he lost income and earning capacity, incurred medical expenses, sustained permanent disability of 54% hence, he has to be compensated by the vehicle owner and the insurer.

4. In support of his claim, three witnesses and 14 exhibits were marked. The Tribunal held that the appellant has proved the accident was due to the negligence of the Lorry bearing Registration No. KA 01 B 7362 owned by the 1st respondent and insured under the 2nd respondent. The appellant has not produced any evidence to prove his income, hence fixed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The disability certificate (Ex.P-11) given by the Doctor examined as P.W-3 assessing the permanent disability as 54% was held excessive. The disability certificate given by the doctor who has not treated the appellant was held to be unreliable. Taking into consideration of the other evidences, the Tribunal fixed the disability as 38%. For each % of disability Rs.2000/- was fixed as compensation. A sum of Rs.1,05,834/- was awarded towards medical expenses as against the claim of Rs.2,15,000/-. The break up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extracted below:

5. In this Appeal, the Appellant put forth his grievance in the following manner:-

(a).The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W-3 who gave the disability certificate (Ex.P-3) observing the patient and his X ray. The appellant who is a weaver by profession suffers 80% functional disability in respect of his earning capacity. No compensation given for the head injury.

(b).The compensation given under the heads pain and suffering, extra nourishment is contravention to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Govind Yadava -Vs- New India Company Limited reported in 2011 (1) SCC 683.

(c).No compensation awarded for attendant charges, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of amenities.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurance company would submit that, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability after comparing the Discharge summary (Ex.P-5) issued by the hospital which treated the appellant and the disability certificate issued by P.W-3 after one year of the accident. The