The Court's decision emphasized the assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering factors such as loss of earning, disability, and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2013 made in MACT O.P. No.4472 of 2012 on the file of the V Judge, Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Chennai.)

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 03.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Small Causes Court) at Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4472 of 2012.

2. The appellant/claimant sustained injuries on 04.09.2012 as a result of an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. He preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (V Judge, Small Causes Court) at Chennai for the injuries sustained by him.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Small Causes Court) at Chennai, under the impugned award directed the respondents to pay the appellant/claimant a compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- together with interests and costs, as detailed hereunder:

4. The appellant/claimant unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award have preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement.

5. Heard Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.R. Neethiperumal, learned counsel for the second respondent. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.

6. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as well the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.

7. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has filed documents which were marked as Exhibits and he was examined as a witness (PW1) and the Doctor, who examined him as PW3. On the side of the respondents neither any document was filed nor any witness was examined before the Tribunal.

8. The appellant/claimant was aged 45 years and he was doing business and in the claim petition, he has pleaded that he was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant/claimant in support of his claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/-. Since the appellant/claimant did not file any documentary evidence before the Tribunal to establish his claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earning to the appellant/claimant on a notional basis. This Court is in agreement with the said assessment as even before this Court, the appellant/claimant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m.

9. The appellant/claimant has sustained the following injury :

Heady injury, anterior intra hemispheric SAH, fracture of both bone right leg distal (3rd) and was treated as inpatient from 04.09.2012 to 10.09.2012 and undergone surgery thereby IL nailing right tibia was done.

10. The Doctor, who assessed him was also examined as a witness before the Tribunal as PW3. He has assessed the disability of the appellant/claimant under two heads. As regards the fracture in the leg, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 40% and as regards the head injury, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 15%. In all put together, the Doctor has assessed the disability at 55%. The Tribunal has awarded disability compensation of Rs.99,000/- to the appellant/claimant calculated at Rs.1,800/- per percentage of disability. The accident happened in