The court upheld the principles of assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on notional income, disability, pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.99 of 2006 on the file of II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012 made in MACT O.P.No.99 of 2006 on the file of II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.

2. The claimant is the appellant herein.

3. The case of the claimant before the trial Court is as follows:

In an accident that had occurred on 06.11.2005, at about 16.30 hrs., when the claimant was walking along the road west to east direction opposite to Government General Hospital, a van bearing Registration No.TN 07 S 7587, which came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. The first respondent being the owner and the second respondent being the insurer of the vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest and cost and since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, the claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent denied the manner in which the accident occurred and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It is the case of the first respondent that the alleged accident had happened only due to the negligent act of the claimant and the respondent denied the validity of the insurance policy and the validity of the driving license of the driver at the time of accident.

5. The second respondent Insurance Company also denied the manner in which the accident had occurred. They denied the age, occupation, income, place and date of accident, cause of injuries, period of treatment undergone and expenses. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, since the vehicle involved is a transport vehicle and the driver was not duly licenced and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the 2nd respondent, R.W.-1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

7. The Tribunal, on considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van and awarded a sum of Rs.2,77,400/- as compensation to the Claimant. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up with the present Appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on record.

9. It is the case of Appellant/Claimant that, the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, when he was actually earning more than that per month and that, the Tribunal ought to have awarded towards pain and suffering, as the claimant sustained fracture of 7th and 8th ribs, left haemopneumothra, collapse of left lung, rupture of spleen, pelvic and abdominal injuries and injury in left ear. The Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and sufferings. However, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings is very low compared to the injuries sustained by the claimant. When the claimant suffered 40% partial and permanent disablement, the Tribunal assessed it as 30% is not correct. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

10. It is seen that, it is a case of injury arising out of an accident that had occurred on 06.11.2005, in which the appellant/claimant sustained injuries, which is supported by Exs.P1,3 and 4, namely, FIR, discharge summary and medical bills. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle/van, which was insured with the 2nd respondent. Considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has fixed a sum of