The court has the authority to enhance compensation if it deems the awarded amount to be meagre.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decretal order dated 20.12.2010 in MCOP.No.1943 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

(This case has been heard through video conference)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 20.12.2010 passed in MCOP.No.1943 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

On 15.11.2005, the Petitioner/Appellant herein was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-22-S-8114 at Kamarajar Salai, Chennai and proceeding from North to south direction. At that time, a Qualis Car bearing Reg.No.TN-1-J-1085 proceeding from east to west direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner’s/appellant’s vehicle, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the car and both are jointly liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner/Appellant.

3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant herein was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He was aged 42 years at the time of accident. He had suffered fracture over the thigh bone and over the shoulder for which he had undergone treatment at various hospitals. P.W.2, Doctor, who had examined the appellant had given disability certificate assessing 54% disability. The Tribunal, without any evidence, had suo motu taken the partial permanent disability suffered by the Appellant/Petitioner as 40% and calculating @ Rs.2000/- for each percentage of disability and thereby, on that basis, the Appellant/Petitioner was granted Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the partial permanent disability. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced.

4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation awarded is correct amount as per the then prevailing cost of living. Therefore, this appeal has to be dismissed.

5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

6. On a perusal of the award, it is found that the Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under various heads:

This amount is meagre.

7. Under the head “loss of income”, it was (has to be) treated as loss of income during treatment period. Therefore, only for the said period, Rs.36,000/- had been allotted. Regarding the permanent disability, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/-, (i.e., Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability). As per Ex.P16, the disability is given as 50% which is considered as partial permanent disability. Without adducing any reason, the Tribunal has reduced the permanent disability as 40% whereas the Doctor has opined as 54% disability. This Court have gone through the entire award. In the discussion, the learned Tribunal has stated that from Doctor to Doctor, the opinion varies, which is acceptable, but it is found that the learned Tribunal has not stated the reason for not accepting 54% disability certified by the Doctor.

8. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company that the permanent partial disability certificate was issued by P.W.2 in the year 2010, after 5 years from the date of accident and therefore, it cannot be accepted and the learned Tribunal had rightly reduced the disability to 40%, ho