JUDGMENT :

S. KANNAMMAL, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II Court of small causes, Chennai, in M.C.O.P No.5519/2013 dated 07.06.2019.

2. As per the averments in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, on 01/02.09.2012 at about 01.15 hrs while the claimant was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration number TN 07 BB 0892 on the Shollinganallur to Medavakkam Road, near the entrance of Mahindra Satyam Software Company Ltd, a TATA Indica car bearing registration number TN-22-CV-1416 came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit behind the motorcycle driven by the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained multiple grievous fracture injuries. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in SRM Hospital, Chennai where he underwent treatment as an in-patient from 02.09.2012 to 30.12.2012 initially and thereafter, again from 06.05.2013 to 08.05.2013. According to the claimant, he had incurred enormous expenses towards his hospitalisation. It is also stated that the claimant was employed as Compounding Specialist I in a company called Symrise Private Limited and earning Rs.1,56,221/- per year. By reason of the injuries sustained in the accident, he had lost his employment and livelihood. Therefore, he filed the claim petition contending that the respondents therein namely owner of the Car as well as its insurer are liable to compensate him for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He therefore filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P No.5519/2013 against the respondents claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rs.1 crore) as compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/owner of the car remained ex-parte. The claim petition was contested only by the Insurance Company namely the second respondent.

4. The second respondent/insurance company filed a counter statement denying the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition. It was specifically averred that the manner of accident portrayed by the claimant in the claim petition is not correct. The Insurance Company also specifically denied the age, avocation, income and other particulars furnished by the claimant in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and three other witnesses as Pw1 to 4 and marked Exs. P1 to P46. On behalf of the respondents in the claim petition, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.

6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the claimant, the tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car owned by the first respondent. By arriving at such a conclusion the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.48,39,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant and directed the second respondent/insurance company to pay the said compensation amount.

7. As against the award passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company, they have not filed any appeal. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, we are not traversing into the findings rendered by the Tribunal with respect to negligence. We are only examining the correctness or otherwise of the award of the Tribunal with respect to the quantum of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the sum of Rs.48,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in total as compensation as against the total claim of Rs.1,000,000,00 (Rs.1 crore) claimed by the claimant is an inadequate compensation. In this regard, it is further submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the age a