JUDGMENT :

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 06.10.2012 in MCOP.No.1482 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, XVII Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

On 28.02.2008 at 10.30 hours, while the claimant was walking at Kelambakkam to Vandaloor road, a Crane bearing registration No.TN-22-AY-3110 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from behind took a left turn in order to avoid collision with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction and in that process hit the claimant, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg. Immediately, he was taken to Stanely Government Hospital for treatment. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

3. The second respondent/Insurance Company had disputed the claim of the claimant and filed the counter statement. After due enquiry, on assessment of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had passed the award of Rs.2,36,225/- as compensation.

4. As per the contentions of the injured victim of the accident, his claim was Rs.8,00,000/-. The claimant stated that he was a coolie in QBM Blue Metal Crusher, Nallambakkam and was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day, and an average income of Rs.5000/- per month. The Tribunal had fixed the notional income as Rs.4500/-. Therefore, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

5. Mr. T.G. Balachandran, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the disability was assessed by the Doctor who had deposed as P.W.2, regarding the fracture of both bones of the right leg and 2nd and 5th Metatarsal bone and loss of muscle on the right foot. The Tribunal failed to consider the same and the loss of earning capacity of the appellant could be fixed at 20%. For non pecuniary heads, the Tribunal had granted only meagre amounts. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount for loss of amenities. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied on the following Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

(i) 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 (SC) (Syed Sadiq, etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,)

Compensation Assessment

Vegetable Vendor – Income of – Rs.6500 p.m., taken as against Rs.3,500 p.m., fixed by High Court – 50% added towards Future Prospects following Santosh Devi.

Permanent Disability – Functional Disability – Amputation of right leg - 65 % disability fixed by High Court not proper - Functional Disability fixed at 85 % - Applying Multiplier Method, Rs.17,90,100 awarded as Loss of Earning Power.

Functional Disability – Type-3 Compound fracture of right femur, Tibia & Fibula – 69% disability – High Court fixing disability at 25% not proper - Fixing Functional Disability at 35 % Loss of earning Power awarded at Rs.7,37,100 applying multiplier of 18.

Communited fracture of right Tibia as also fracture of right humerus – Functional Disability fixed at 85% as against 35 % fixed by High Court.

Cost of Litigation – Rs.25,000 awarded following principles in Balram Prasad.

(ii) 2015 (2) TNMAC 624 (The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. Vs. R. Hyder Ali

Permanent Disability

Fracture of Tibia & Fibula of right leg – 45% disability – Tribunal, fixing Loss of Earning Capacity at 30%, awarding Rs.2,97,000 as compensation towards Loss of Earning Capacity applying Multiplier method – Confirmed in Appeal.

7. Mr. M.B. Gopalan, learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Tribunal had properly appreciated the evidence available before the Tribunal and had passed a reasonable award. There is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appea