JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.1387 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupur.)

1. This is an appeal by the claimant. The claimant is aggrieved by the sum of Rs.1,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in and by the award dated 19.01.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.1387 of 2009 filed by him.

2. The claimant has filed the M.C.O.P.No.1387 of 2009 seeking compensation from the respondents, who are driver of the bus, owner of the bus and its insurer. According to the claimant on 02.08.2009 at about 8.30 a.m., when he was traveling as a pillion rider in the TVS Moped driven by one Gopinath, near Pandian Nagar, Thirumuruganpoondi Road, the bus bearing Registration No.TN-39-NT-2459 was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and hit the two-wheeler driven by the said Gopinath. In the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Government Hospital, Tirupur and subsequently taken treatment in CMC Hospital, Coimbatore. According to the claimant, at the time of accident, he was 37 years old and working as a Packer in Thirupathi Tex, Pandian Nagar and was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, for the injuries he sustained in the accident, the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. On notice, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter statement before the Tribunal. It is the defense of the Insurance Company that the 1st respondent had driven the mini bus in a careful manner. However, it was the driver of the TVS-50, over which the claimant was traveling as a pillion driver, driven it negligently which resulted in the accident. It is also the defense of the Insurance Company that the driver of the TVS-50 by name Gopinath did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, conveniently the claimant did not implead the insurer of the TVS-50 Motor vehicle. The Insurance Company also denied the various averments relating to the age, income and avocation of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and narrated the injuries he sustained in the accident. Dr.Sendhil Kumar was examined as P.W.2 and one Muruganandam as P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on his side. The respondents in the claim petition did not examine any witness on their side or marked any document. The Tribunal taking note of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the 1st respondent/ driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. At the same time, the Tribunal also rendered a finding that Gopinath, the driver of the two-wheeler had driven the vehicle without noticing the on coming mini-bus driven by the 1st respondent. Had he been cautious he could have averted the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded the compensation amount to be paid by the driver of the two-wheeler as well as the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company in the ratio of 50:50. As regards the quantum of compensation, by taking into consideration, the percentage of disability assessed by P.W.2, at 35%, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability to arrive at a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- under the head partial disablement. For pain and suffering a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded and for attendant charges a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded. The Tribunal also taken into account, the loss of earning during the period of treatment and awarded Rs.6,000/- per month for three months, to arrive at a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month. In all a total sum of Rs.1,93,000/- was assessed as compensation out of which 50% was directed to be paid by the 3rd respondent/Insur