The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of disability and the determination of fair and adequate compensation under various heads.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P. No. 221 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

This case has been heard through Video Conferencing.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case is that on 07.10.2012 at about 07.15 p.m. while the petitioner was crossing Thiruporur Road near Pillaiyarkovil, rider of a two wheeler without any registration number, being a new vehicle dashed against the appellant causing fracture injury. The appellant was taken to the hospital and treated for his fracture proximal tibia right side and lacerated injuries over the body. The claim petition was filed for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- alleging that the claimant was working as an Office Assistant in Hindustan Institute of Engineering College for a monthly salary of Rs. 6,500/- and due to the fractured injury, he was unable to move and find difficult to stand and walk.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company through its counter stating that the injury and the disability averred in the claim petition are exaggerated and the quantum of compensation claimed is highly excessive and not in consonance with the injury sustained. Further, the plea of want of valid driving license to the rider of the offending vehicle was also raised in order to get exonerated from the liability.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence has held that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the motor cycle rider and the motor cycle is duly insured under the appellant herein. As far as the injury sustained by the claimant, though the doctor has opined that the disability is 55%, the Tribunal after considering the nature of injury i.e. Fracture proximal tibia for which right ORIF and bone grafting done, fixed the disability at 25%. The total sum of Rs. 3,07,000/- was awarded under the following heads:

6. The appeal is preferred on the ground that the Tribunal has lower estimated the disability, while the competent doctor has assessed 55% disability and the Tribunal has reduced the disability to 25% without any reason. Further, for transport and extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 20,000/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have awarded an additional compensation towards future medical treatment.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the claim of the appellant was excessive and exorbitant without any evidence. The assessment of 55% disability given by the Doctor, who is a regular Court visitor was not for the whole body but for the part of the body. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability for the whole body at 25%. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have awarded only Rs. 2000/- per percentage of disability whereas awarded Rs. 3000/- per percentage of disability.

8. On considering the rival submission, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 07.10.2012. The claimant/appellant was admitted in the hospital for his i