The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence and the assessment of compensation based on the validity of the presented evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Decree and Judgment dated 20.07.2015 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1393 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1.

2. The Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, which is aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

3. The respondent/claimant met with an accident on 17.12.2010 while crossing the road near Jayanthi Theatre, Nandambakkam, Chennai. He was admitted in the hospital and treated for two days. Claiming that, he took native treatment at Puttur, filed petition claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation against the car owner and the insurer of the car, which hit him while crossing the Mount-Poonamallee Road.

4. The accident occurred on 17.12.2010, the Petition was filed on 22.12.2010. After nearly 4 years, amendment petition was filed and same was allowed on 17.12.2014. The claim amount was amended from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Trial commenced and the impugned award was passed on 20.07.2015.

5. Before the tribunal, the Insurance Company filed counter and additional counter stating that, the accident occurred due to the reckless and indiscreet Act of the claimant while crossing the road unmindful of oncoming car. The age and income of the claimant was disputed. The injuries sustained were minor in nature. He was treated without surgery and discharged within two days. No evidence to show that he took treatment at Puttur or elsewhere. The claim is fanciful without any relevancy to the injury.

6. The Tribunal accepting the documents placed by the claimant has awarded Rs.7,11,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest. The break up under different heads is given below:

7. In the appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that, the award is not in consonance with the facts and evidence placed on record. There is no evidence to show the claimant was employed as a cook and earning Rs.500/- per day. The claimant himself has stated to the police while giving complaint about accident, that he was a storekeeper in a hotel. Contrary to his statement in F.I.R marked as Ex.P-1, the claimant has deposed that he was working as a cook at the time of accident and presently working as watchman. The Tribunal, instead of fixing the monthly income notionally, had fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.7,500/- without any documentary proof. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation for loss of earning with additional future prospects. The discharge summary marked as Ex.P-2 clearly shows that the claimant was treated conservatively for two days and discharged. The injury was only rearrangement of right knee and same was treated conservatively without surgery. He has not taken any treatment thereafter. While so, the Tribunal has erroneously relied on the disability certificate issued 4 years after accident by a doctor, who never treated the claimant.

8. Admittedly, the doctor who gave the disability certificate has relied on the MRI scan took 4 years after the accident and that disability certificate is not based on the medical records soon after the accident. The discharge summary Ex.P-3 issued on 19.12.2010 indicates that, there is no bone injury and the X-ray of right knee show internal rearrange