JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decreetal order made in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2010 dated 29.02.2012 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Court), Nagercoil.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2010 dated 29.02.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2010, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in an accident that took place on 17.04.2010. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.64 of 2010 is as follows:

The petitioner was a mason earning Rs.8,750/- per month. On 17.04.2010, at about 9.30 p.m., when the petitioner was walking along the pathway to his house, a Tata car bearing registration No.TN-74-L-8367 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner from behind and the petitioner sustained injuries and he took treatment as 'in patient' from 17.04.2010 till 06.05.2010 in the Government Hospital, Aasaripallam. Subsequently, he took treatment in Siva Private hospital as 'in patient' from 06.05.2010 till 11.05.2010. He took treatment as in patient for a total period of 20 days. Subsequently, he took treatment as 'out patient'. The petitioner is permanently disabled and he claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation.

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

The manner of the accident has to be proved by the petitioner. The involvement of the vehicle and the accident was brought to the knowledge of the third respondent, only after the receipt of notice from the Court. The owner of the vehicle or the injured did not inform the accident. It was the petitioner, who crossed the road without observing the traffic and he invited the accident. The driver of the car drove the vehicle in a careful manner and he saved the petitioner by applying sudden brake, when the petitioner was crossing the road. The petitioner has to prove his age, income and profession. The claim is excessive.

5. The first and second respondents were set exparte. On the side of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the respondents therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the award.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method to evaluate the disability. The Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant was a mason and he could not continue his work after the accident. Fixing Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) per percentage of disability is erroneous. The Tribunal failed to consider the salary certificate to fix the loss of income. The compensation awarded under various heads is very low and it has to be enhanced.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the left hand and left leg of the appellant were fractured. The appellant was having three fractures. The disability was assessed as 30%. P.W.2 has assessed the disability and issued disability certificate, Ex.P10. Whereas the Tribunal has made an observation that the appellant was having only lacerated injuries.

8. On the side of the respondents, it is stated that in Ex.P5, wound certificate issued by the Governm