JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy made in M.C.O.P.No.1053 / 2013 dated 28.02.2014 and allow the appeal with costs.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No.1053 of 2013, dated 28.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-ordinate Judge), Trichy.

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the main claim petition.

3. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.1053 of 2013 is as follows:-

(i) On 21.05.2011 at about 09.05 p.m., near Amarar Chinnasamy Park, K.K.Nagar, Trichy on K.K.Nagar road, when the first respondent/petitioner was driving a motor-cycle bearing registration No.TN.48-C-4142 on the extreme left side of K.K.Nagar road in a normal speed and adhering the traffic rules carefully, the another Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-45-AS-2434, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle. The claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Trichy for first aid and then, he was admitted in KMC Specialty hospital, Trichy and took that must as an inpatient for a period of one month and then he got treatment at another private hospital. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:-

The amount of compensation stated in the claim petition is high. The accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. The claimant has not possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor Cycle at the time of accident. The petitioner has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and insurer is not at all liable to pay compensation.

5. The nature and the manner of the accident is wrongly mentioned in the petition. The first respondent is not responsible for the accident. The petitioner consumed alcohol and drove the Motor Cycle in a negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident. The age, nature of injuries, nature of treatment and occupation have to be proved by producing relevant documents.

6. Three witness were examined and 9 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and 1 document was marked on the side of the respondent. After hearing both side, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,40,700/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Thousand and Seven Hundred Only) to be paid by the second respondent therein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurer has preferred this appeal.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that it was the claimant who rode the two wheeler under the influence of alcohol and he invited the accident and the tribunal has wrongly fixed 90% negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. A doctor from the Government Hospital was examined and he has specifically stated that at the time of the accident, the claimant had consumed alcohol. In the Accident register which was prepared immediately after the accident was marked as Ex.R2 wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner “breath smells of alcohol” and in the discharge summary of KMC marked as Ex.P2, it was stated that “patient was a in unconscious stage due to the influence of alcohol.”

8. The Tribunal, without analyzing the available evidence, has fixed 90% negligence on the part of the rider of the second respondent's vehicle. The Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier 15 for calculating compensation for the disability. The doctor has wrongly and excessively assessed the disability of the claimant. The doctor has fixed 33% disability for head injury, 40% disability for the fracture and fixed 73% disability in total, which is