JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2002 dated 26.02.2007.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2002 dated 26.02.2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil.

2. The first appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The first appellant herein died and the second appellant herein is the legal heir of the first appellant herein. The first appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2002, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in an accident that took place on 27.07.2002. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.78,800/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.88 of 2002 is as follows:

On 27.07.2002, at about 12 noon, while the petitioner and his father Gurusamy were walking along the road, the first respondent drove a lorry bearing registration No.TN-23-Q-8092 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries and he was admitted in Sivagiri Government Hospital. The petitioner was doing sixth standard at the time of accident. Both his legs were injured due to the accident. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent therein is as follows:

The accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. The first respondent is not responsible for the accident. The petitioner has not sustained any disability. The first respondent was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The policy conditions are violated. Hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 remain exparte. On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. On the side of the third respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.78,800/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the Tribunal has failed to note the injuries sustained by the petitioner. During the treatment, the right leg above the knee was amputated. The permanent disability was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Due to the accident, the appellant was not able to continue his studies. P.W.2 assessed the disability at 90%. The disability certificate was marked as Ex.P8. But the Tribunal reduced the disability as 30%. The appellant took treatment for a period of 2 ½ months in the Government Hospital, Sivagiri. But the Tribunal failed to award compensation for attendant charges. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings in the case of amputation. The injury will affect the future studies, professional opportunity and marital prospects of the petitioner. The Tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method. Atleast Rs.2,000/- per percentage of the disability for 90% disability is to be awarded. Even the day to day, life of the petitioner is affected.

7. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the first appellant is only a washerman. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the first appellant could not balance himself and he fell into the river water and died. The father of the first appellant is also dead. The mother of the first appellant was impleaded as the second appellant.

8. On the side of the third respondent, it is stated t