JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

(heard through video-conferencing)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 07.06.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.4594 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI - Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4594 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI - Court of Small Causes, Chennai. He filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 05.05.2002.

Brief facts:

3. On 05.05.2002, at about 10.15 hours, the appellant/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-U-7977 proceeding from South to North at Anna Salai, near Pallavan House, Chennai. At that time, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake and hit against the motorcycle. In the impact, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle, belonging to the first respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.14,72,543/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant.

5. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Mrs. Ramya Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted her arguments. As per her submissions, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VI - Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire claim for Rs.14,72,543/-. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and clearly deposed that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital wherein, on diagnosis, it was found that there is contusion of the brain, right frontal fracture of skull, fracture of ribs in right side, contusion and haemothorax of right side, right C3 to T1 nerve roots injury, paralysis of right upper limb and right side tongue, fracture of right clavicle. Dr. K.J. Mathiazhagan, was examined as P.W.4 to speak about the difficulties and deformities caused to the claimant and assessed the disability at 60% for the nerve injuries from C3 to T1 as total permanent disability and 10% partial permanent disability for fracture of Zygoma and 20% partial permanent disability for fracture of Maxilla. Dr. Rajappa, who is an Ophthalmologist was examined as P.W.3 stating that he had assessed the disability for the injury to loss of vision to the tune of 15%. From the evidence of P.W.4, it is clear that the appellant had suffered total permanent disability to the tune of 60%. From the combined evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is established that the appellant had suffered 45% partial permanent disability. Here is the case where the claimant was unable to attend Court. Therefore, his wife was examined as P.W.1. The appellant had filed Income Tax Return pertaining to the year 2001-2002, 2002-2003. He was earning income from the business of purchase and sale of handicraft items. Apart from that, he was drawing income from agriculture also. The claims Tribunal ignored the same while calculating the income. The learned Tribunal ought to have calculated the future prospects at 50% of income especially the prospects to earn has affected due to partial permanent disability. The age of the appellant was 40 years at the time of accident, hence the proper multiplier is 16'. The claimant had suffered 100% dis