The timing of clinical examination, evidence of employment, and possession of a valid driving license are crucial factors in determining compensation for road accident injuries.

JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through video conference)

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decreetal order dated 27.07.2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.911 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Poonamallee.)

1. This appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhanced compensation for the injury sustained in the road accident.

2. On 07.02.2007 at about 11.25 a.m., while the appellant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-01-V-5109 at the Junction of Sathiyamoorthy Road and Kengu Reddy Road, a car bearing Reg.No.TN-01-AB-9285 dashed against the motorcycle. The claimant sustained fractured injury and was treated as out patient at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and thereafter, took native treatment for the fractured bone. At the time of accident, the claimant was earning Rs.4500/- p.m., as a delivery and purchase boy at Net Avenue Technologies (P) Ltd., Chetpet. Seeking compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- claim petition was filed against the owner of the car and its insurer.

3. The insurance Company filed counter stating that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party namely, the Insurance Company of the motor cycle which the claimant was riding. The accident occurred due to the contribution of the claimant who rash and negligently rode his two wheeler and colluded against the car. The claim of Rs.6,88,000/- is extremely high and exorbitant.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant and Doctor Subramaniam, who gave the disability certificate were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. 11 exhibits were marked in support of the claim petition. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a, from 07.10.2009 to till the the date of deposit, excluding the period of dismissal for default, if any.

5. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the appeal stating that the Doctor, who has clinically examined the claimant has assessed the disability at 25%. While so, the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier method under the head “compensation for the future loss of earning capacity” and ought to have awarded compensation accordingly. It was also contended that the Tribunal has failed to award adequate compensation under the other heads like disfiguration of face; pain and suffering; mental agony; loss of amenities; loss of expectation of life and medical attendance.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurance Company submitted that the claimant was 19 years old at the time of accident and had no valid driving license. Due to his negligence he met with the accident, while driving the motorcycle. He has not produced the licence and the insurance policy of the motor cycle. The insurer of his motorcycle was not impleaded as party respondent for appropriate adjudication. Since there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, his insurer is a proper party. However, the Tribunal ignoring the said defect and has awarded Rs.90,000/- as compensation. The Doctor, who only clinically examined the claimant has assessed the disability as 25% and the Tribunal has accepted the same and awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the said disability. The claimant for the injury has incurred a sum of Rs.15,509/- towards medical expenses and the same was reimbursed. The claimant had not proved any other loss. However, for the loss of earning during the treatment period a sum of Rs.4,500/- was awarded. For pain and suffering a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded Rs.2,000/- each for transportation and extra nourishment also awarded.

7. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the injury sustained by the claimant namely, fracture of left clavicle was treated and cured. It is not a scheduled injury and no evidence to indicate that the said injury has impaired the ear