The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to support claims of loss of income, job reduction, or service impact, especially in cases involving disability compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.202 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam.)

1. The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.202 of 2014 by the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam, is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The accident occurred on 29.06.2014 at about 15.30 Hours at Kovai to Trichy Main Road, in front of Sulur Lorry Owners Association Sangam Petrol Bunk, Sulur, Coimbatore District. The Sulur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.504 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.

3. The respondent-claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-PG-2371 from Sulur Air Force to Sulur. The other vehicle involved in the accident is Yamaha Crux Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BV-1020. Due to the accident, the respondent-claimant sustained grievous injuries, including fractures all over the body.

4. The claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimant before the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties.

6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,53,554/- and challenging the same, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company reiterated that the award of the Tribunal, is exorbitant. The Tribunal has not considered the nature of injuries sustained and the consequences. There is no loss of income as such and the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.6,74,114/- towards disability compensation.

7. The appellant-Insurance Company contended that the competent Medical Board assessed the disability at 40% and the said disability had not affected the job of the respondent-claimant in the Indian Air Force. The respondent-claimant also has not produced any evidence to establish that due to the accident, he is deprived of his service or some reduction of service or otherwise, was imposed by the Indian Air Force Authorities. In the absence of any such evidence to establish the loss of income, loss of job or any other service consequences, the Tribunal ought not to have granted such a huge compensation in the case of an injury and more-so, the injuries are also not grievous. The respondent-claimant is aged about 25 years at the time of accident and after treatment, he became normal and there is no permanent disability as such. Thus, the award of the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be scrapped.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimant disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company by stating that the respondent-claimant was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he was a young Air Force worker. The accident made him to suffer for a long period. There was a reduction of service, which affected his career and therefore, the same is in consonance with the principles laid down and there is no error apparent on the part of the Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- claimant is of the opinion that the services of the claimant was affected due to the accident and therefore, the award of compensation by the Tribunal is reasonable and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the negligence aspect is that as per Ex.P-3, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-37-BV-1020 is guilty of rash and negligent riding of his motorcycle and he is responsible for the accident. Due to which, the respondent-claimant sustained injuries. More-specifically, the accused pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court and paid the fine amount on 25.09.