The injured claimant's permanent disability and its impact on his future warranted enhanced compensation, and the court applied the principles from relevant case laws to modify the award of the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Tirunelveli, dated 26.07.2019.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Tirunelveli made in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2016, dated 26.07.2019.

2. It is a case of injury sustained by the injured/claimant in an accident, which took place on 24.12.2015 at 4.20 p.m., near Sengulam branch road.

3. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that when he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 72 AK 8588 from South to North on the Tirunelveli-Nagercoil National Highway, after showing hand signal and the indicator, turned the vehicle towards left. At that time, the first respondent car bearing registration No.TN 49 BY 1018, insured with the second respondent came behind of the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle from behind and caused the accident. In the said accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries.

4. The claimant filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court), Tirunelveli, seeking compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked 27 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. The second respondent/Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.1 and did not marked any document before the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore, directed the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.6,90,000/-, as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization.

7. Against which, the appellant/claimant filed this present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the victim sustained injuries and he was treated by P.Ws.2 and 3-Doctors. The P.W2-Doctor on physical examination assessed the disability at 61.2% and issued certificate on the basis of reports and examination. However, based on Ex.P.14 disability certificate issued by the TVMC Board Hospital, Tirunelveli, it was assessed that the permanent disability with regard to the whole body is 50%. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment rendered in Sudeep. A.K vs. General Manger, KSRTC & Ors., reported in 2019 (2) TN MAC 606 (DB) (Kar.), wherein the award of Rs.8,27,000/- was enhanced to Rs.41,92,000/-

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.

10. Perusal of the record reveals that the injured/claimant has suffered pain and permanent disability which continues his life causing serious impact on the quality of life and his future is in peril. Considering the fact that the disability is worse than that of a fatal accident, as a victim, he has to eke out through out his life with the permanent disability and hence, the injured claimant needs to be compensated.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Syed Sadiq vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459(SC), has fixed the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor where there was no proof of income. In the present case on hand, during the time of accident, the injured claimant eking out his life by running a tuition centre and hence, it is reasonable to fix Rs.6,000/- as a monthly income and since the age of the injured claimant was fo