JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 17,17,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts are that on 12.7.2010 at about 8.10 P.M., the appellant was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No. TN-22 AV 3844 on the left side of Medavakkam Main Road. While he was nearing Bhavani Mahal, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. TN-10 H 3555 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the appellant was admitted in Dr. Kamakshi Memorial Hospital, where he had taken treatment from 12.7.2010 to 08.9.2010. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No. 922 of 2010 by St. Thomas Mount Traffic Investigation Police Station against the driver of the tipper lorry. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 31 years and was earning Rs. 25,000/- by working as House Keeping Executive in Mac Lellan. According to the appellant, at the time of accident, the first respondent's lorry was insured with the second respondent under Policy No. 011100/31/09/01/00007673 valid from 06.12.2009 to 05.12.2010. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry, the appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 32.00 lakhs.

3. Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent filed counter stating that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry and they have not received any information from the first respondent qua accident. The second respondent denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the appellant. It is stated in the counter that the injuries and disability are exaggerated and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Dr. JRR. Thiagarajan was examined as P.W. 2. Exs. P1 to P20 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the second respondent.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's tipper lorry and the second respondent being the insurer of the tipper lorry is liable to pay the compensation. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,17,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering the petition i.e., 28.11.2011 till the date of deposit.

6. It appears that as against the award, admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant alone has preferred the present appeal. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to state entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal and secondly, none of those findings are under challenge either by the second respondent insurance company or the owner of the offending three-wheeler.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the disability at 50% and awarded very meagre amount. In fact, P.W. 2-Doctor examined the appellant and issued Ex. P20-disability certificate assessing the disability at 60% and the Tribunal exercised its discretion perversely upon wrong principles, which caused serious prejudice to the appellant. He would submit that the Tribunal failed to calculate the compensation in multiplier method.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the injuries, loss of earning of one year of appellant and passed the award wrongly fixing as 148 days and awarded very meagre amount. The amounts