JUDGMENT :

V. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP No.1208 of 2015 dated 11.04.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.)

1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruppur in MCOP No.1208 of 2015 dated 11.04.2019.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal would run thus:-

This is the case of injury. On 07.06.2015, the claimant, as a driver, drove the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Reg.No.TN-33-N-2278 from Coimbatore to Salem. When the said bus was nearing Perumanallur, right front tyre of the bus was puncher. After changing spare tyre, when he moved the bus, a Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-43-Y-3502 came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the bus. In the impact, the claimant sustained grievous blood injuries on his leg, head and all over his body. Immediately, he was admitted at Malarpriya Hospital, Tiruppur as inpatient and thereafter, he was taken to the Meena Pasupathi Hospital at Erode and admitted as inpatient. Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry, the claimant laid petition, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. Resisting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company filed their counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant and its liability to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

4. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.17 were marked and Ex.C.1 was marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the driver of the Tipper Lorry was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- to the claimant. Assailing the award, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.18,000/- and added 50% as future prospects and calculated the amount for disability and loss of income by applying multiplier 15' and awarded Rs.24,30,000/- (18000+9000=27000x12x15x50/100). The injured before the accident worked as driver in the Transport Corporation. After the accident, he was working as Time Keeper at the Bus Stand and he did not loss his job. He himself admitted this fact in his evidence during the cross examination. Therefore, in the absence of loss of employment, awarding Rs.25,30,000/- under the head of disability and loss of income is unsustainable. Besides, the learned counsel contended that the injured claimant did not file his salary certificate or any document to show his monthly income before the Tribunal. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show his monthly income, fixing Rs.18,000/- as monthly income is unsustainable and thus, pleaded to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant supported the judgment of the Tribunal. He further contended that admittedly, the injured claimant was working as driver in the Transport Corporation. P.W.2 K.Paulraj deposed before the Tribunal that the injured was working with him as driver and earned Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of any document produced to that effect, the Tribunal fixed Rs.18,000/- and added 50% towards future prospects as he is having permanent job. There is no illegality in fixing the monthly income of the injured claimant as Rs.18,000/-. Even though he was permitted to work as Time Keeper in the bus stan