The court's decision emphasized the assessment of evidence, nature of injuries, and disability in determining the appropriate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.252 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sankagiri.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in award dated 07.07.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.252 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sankagiri.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.252 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Sankagiri. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 29.03.2013.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, he was riding as a pillion rider in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-52-Z-7614 belonging to the 2nd respondent, with his friend one Mukilan in the extreme left side of the Sankari to Tiruchengode Main road. While nearing Moodikkadu Arunthathiyar Street, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, the rider of the Motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, ran over on a stone, lost his control and fell down with the bike and caused the accident. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle belonging to the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as owner and appellant as insurer of the said vehicle.

4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the Motorcycle, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the accident occurred only due to the incompetence of the rider of the Motorcycle to ride the same. The Police has closed the criminal case as Mistake of Facts. The 1st respondent gave a false complaint as if the rider of the 1st respondent's Motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner. The 1st respondent has to prove that the rider of the Motorcycle possessed valid driving license to ply the vehicle and vehicle had valid RC, Permit and FC at the time of accident. In any event, the 1st respondent also has to prove the age, avocation and income, injuries sustained and treatment taken to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The disability certificate of the 1st respondent was marked as Ex.C1.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motorcycle belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 07.07.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.252 of 2014, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that in the absence of any evidence by the 1st respondent to prove his avocation and income, the Tribunal erroneously fixed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income. The Tribunal ought to have considered the 5% disability assessed by the Medical Board, which shows that the injuries suffered are simple in nature. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and future medical expenses are excessive