JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.06.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Mettur.

2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Mettur. He filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 03.11.2007.

3. According to the appellant/claimant, on 03.11.2007, at about 11.30 a.m., while the appellant was proceeding in his Bajaj Discover Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-04-AB-4519 from Thambaram to Maraimalai Nagar on the extreme left side of the road, near Potheri SRM College, an auto bearing Registration No.TN-22-1-9588, which came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn at a high speed in the opposite direction dashed against the said motorcycle. Due to the said impact, the appellant sustained nasal bleeding, contusion over his upper, lower lips, abrasion over his left arm, fracture over his right leg, head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. Therefore, he filed the above claim petition claiming compensation.

4. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contented that the 1st respondent was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant/claimant. The claimant has to prove the age, income, nature of injuries, medical expenses incurred due to the accident with relevant documentary evidence.

5. In order to prove his claim, the injured/claimant had examined himself as P.W.1. and the Doctor was examined as P.W.2. Documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A25. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto rickshaw belonging to the 1st respondent and directed both the respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,400/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant.

7. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has come out with the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.S.S.Saminathan. As per his submissions, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and had not assessed the disability suffered by the claimant. P.W.2/Doctor had assessed the partial permanent disability as 52%, whereas the learned Tribunal had considered 40% disability without any scientific reason and had invoked the percentage system whereby Rs.1,500/- was fixed per one percent disability and totally the claimant was granted Rs.60,000/- only as compensation. The claimant had furnished the salary certificate and claimed for partial permanent disability. Without assigning any reason for rejecting the salary certificate, the Tribunal had invoked the percentage system. Therefore, the claimant was granted only a meagre amount as compensation. Had the Tribunal invoked the multiplier system, the compensation would have been on the higher side and would meet the requirements of the claimant and it could have been a just compensation.

9. Mr.S.S.Saminathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following rulings, in support of his submissions regarding enhancement :

.1. “Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Vs. Nagamalli and Others” report