The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the appellant's medical bills and the nature of injuries suffered.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 09.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.5421 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge-FAC, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the judgment, dated 09.10.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.5421 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge-FAC, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.5421 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge-FAC, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai. He filed the above claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.03.2014. According to the appellant, on 21.03.2014 at about 7.00 pm while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 22 BA 4366 with his relative one Jagan Dhanasekaran as pillion rider, a container lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28-L-2452 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by him. In the impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the appellant was taken to Jaya Hospital, Sriperumbadur, where, after giving first aid, he was shifted to Parvathy Ortho and Neuro Hospital, Chromepet, Chennai. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the appellant was 42 years old and he was carrying on trading business and also was the owner of a provisional shop at Vallakottai whereby he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. By reason of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had lost his livelihood and therefore, he filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation against the owner of the lorry and it’s insurer.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, disputing the details furnished in the claim petition with respect to nature of injuries, period of treatment, occupation and income of the claimant. In the counter statement, it is stated that the appellant rode his motorcycle without driving licence and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. It is further stated that the appellant has to prove that there was no violation of policy conditions at the time of accident. In the absence of any proof in that regard, the second respondent is not liable to indemnify the first respondent for the loss arising out of the accident. In so far as the nature of injuries is concerned, the second respondent stated that the appellant has to explain the injuries suffered by him by producing relevant medical evidence. But, the appellant has not produced the original medical records to that effect. Hence, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on his side. On the side of the second respondent/Insurance Company, no witness was examined or document produced.

6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Eicher Jumbo, Heavy Motor Vehicle with container belonging to the first respondent herein and directed the second respondent-Insurance Company, being insurer of the said vehicle, to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,900/- as compensation to the appellant under the following heads: