JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.9048 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special Sub-Court No.II, Chennai.)

(The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode")

1. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded on 17.12.2019 in M.C.O.P.No.9048 of 2015, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.II, Chennai, the present appeal is filed.

2. The first respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimant that on 02.11.2015 at about 21.30 hours, when he was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-18-C-1812 from Thamaraipakam Koot road to Thirunindravur, the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-18-2772, owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the Insurance Company/appellant herein, came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against him. In the impact, the claimant sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.9048 of 2015 before the Tribunal, claiming for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- as compensation as against the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance company/appellant herein.

3. The appellant/Insurance company resisted the claim petition by filing a counter affidavit, in which they have denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant besides contending that the claimant had contributed to the accident. Further, it was stated that the complaint was registered belatedly on 20.11.2015, 18 days after the accident but there is no justifiable reason mentioned in the said complaint for the delay. It was also contended that the injuries sustained by the claimant does not warrant award of compensation as prayed for by the claimant and therefore, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and eighteen documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Ex.C1/Disability Certificate of the claimant was marked as Court exhibit.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the second respondent’s two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-18-2272. As regards the quantum, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,06,319/- on various heads. Contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is onerous, the present appeal is filed.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, the amount awarded towards disability by the Tribunal at Rs.9,45,000/- is enormous and it warrants interference by this Court. Such compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal by solely relying upon the Court evidence Ex.C1/Disability Certificate. However, the Doctor, who issued Ex.C1 was not examined before the Tribunal. While so, the Tribunal ought not to have placed reliance on Ex.C1. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have taken 30% for calculating the loss of earning power. The Tribunal also did not consider that the claimant has not filed any document to prove his income, while so, the Tribunal erred in fixing a sum of Rs.6,500/- as notional income and awarded the compensation by resorting to multiplier method. This is a case of injury where the claimant had suffered only 30% disability, even according to the Tribunal. While so, the question of awarding compensation by adopting multiplier method is legally not sustainable. Further, he submitted that the assessment of the disability was not followed by the guidelines of the Me