JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the award passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC-1) (M.A.C.T.), Salem in M.C.O.P. No.285/1998 dated 28.06.2002, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 04.01.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding near Ramakrishna Park, Hasthampatty police limit, Salem in his TVS 50 Moped bearing Registration No. TN-27-B-7084, the first respondent's motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-27-B-2122 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant and thereby caused grievous injuries to the claimant. He was admitted in hospital and taken treatment. Hence, the claimant has filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents towards permanent disability sustained by the claimant.

3. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the claimant. R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,142/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The award passed by the tribunal under various heads are as follows:

4. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has come forward with the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre as the claimant suffered 90% permanent disability and moreover, the claimant has lost his life and he cannot do any work without any assistance and further, he is unable to perform his day-to-day activities. The learned counsel further submitted that the claimant should be awarded a just and reasonable compensation as the negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent's vehicle is confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the claimant. She further submitted that they are disputing the factum of percentage of disablement arrived at by the Tribunal and also the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal and contended that no further enhancement is required.

7. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

8. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed by this Court.

9. On Perusal of the records reveals that the appellant have produced the wound certificate/Ex.P2 for the injuries sustained by him and the doctor was examined as P.W.2 before the tribunal. P.W.2 deposed that the claimant had suffered 90% permanent disablement due to the accident. P.W.2 further deposed that the claimant/appellant sustained fracture in spinal card, hip bone and grievous injuries all over the body. According to P.W.2, the claimant/appellant sustained disability in spinal card due to which he unable to urinate and also problem in bowel motion. It is further submitted that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in brain and due to the grievous injuries at cervical spine, both hands and both legs are non functional. Therefore,