The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method to enhance the compensation amount for motor accident injuries, considering the nature and magnitude of the injuries, disability assessment, and the need for future medical treatment.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2014 in M.C.O.P.No.157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur.)

This appeal is taken up for hearing through Video-conferencing.

2. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in and by award dated 10.10.2014 passed in M.C.O.P. No.157 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court at Attur, the claimant has come forward with this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. As per the averments made in M.C.O.P.No.157 of 2010, on 30.08.2009, the claimant was riding the Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN.27.H.7282 from his residence situated at Kumarapalayam Village to go to Attur. At about 7.30 am, when he was driving the said two wheeler near Attur Housing Board, ahead of Kurinchi bus stop, the driver of a Tractor, mounted with Harvestor bearing Registration No. TN.48.F.1930 belonging to the first respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and hit the two- wheeler driven by the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained bleeding injuries on his left hand, right hand, right side hip, right thigh, left thigh, below the right knee. According to the claimant, he suffered multiple fractures and he was taken for treatment to Government Hospital, Attur. After providing first aid, the claimant was taken to Sri Palani Andavar Memorial Hospital, Salem where he was admitted as an in-patient. After providing treatment for about 10 days, the claimant was discharged from the hospital. However, on 12.11.2009, the claimant was re-admitted in the same hospital where he had underwent a surgery on 13.11.2009 and was discharged on 19.11.2009. Once again, the claimant was admitted on 29.01.2010 in the very same hospital where he underwent a surgery on 30.01.2010 and discharged again on 13.02.2010. According to the claimant, inspite of such treatment, he is still suffering immensely. Due to the accident, he could not pass urine freely and his urinal tract has been ruptured, with the result, he is dribbing the urine. The nature of injuries sustained by him resulted in penile dysfunction, due to which co-habitation in his marital life, had been adversely affected. It was stated in the claim petition that the claimant was working as an agriculturist and he owns land measuring 3.5 acres. Besides agriculture, the claimant also owns a Turmeric cleaning machine and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, due to the multiple fracture, urethra rupture and rectum tear, suffered by the claimant, he could not discharge his normal work and had totally lost his capacity to earn money. According to the claimant, the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, which is insured with the second respondent/insurer. Therefore, the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation.

4. The claim petition was contested by the second respondent/Insurance Company by filing a counter before the Tribunal. According to the second respondent/Insurance Company, at the time of the accident, the claimant was jobless and he was dependent on others, therefore, the averment that he was doing agricultural activities besides earning Rs.15,000/- per month is false. It was also stated that the claimant alone was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner at the time of the accident and therefore, the driver of the tractor cannot be faulted with. The second respondent also denied the averments made in the claim petition with regard to the period of hospitalisation of the claimant, nature of injuries said to have been suffered by him and the surgeries said to have been performed to him. In effect, it was co