The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the Tribunal's determination of disability and the Court's authority to enhance the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2015 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 95 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, Ponneri.)

1. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 95 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the appellant herein.

2. Necessity to file the claim petition before the Tribunal arose since, the appellant Bala @ Balamurugan, who was aged 19 years and working as Cleaner in a Lorry bearing Registration No. TN –22-C-3445 had suffered injuries on 25.12.2010 at around 5.00 a.m., when he was giving reverse signal to the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-59-M-3971 at Lakshmanan Salai, Kandhanchavadi, Chennai. At that time, the lorry driver is said to have reversed the vehicle in over speed and had dashed against the claimant. The claimant sustained injuries, which were as follows:-

“1. Traumatic disphragmatic hernia; 2. Left phemothoram with fracture rib 1 to 3.3. Pelvi fracture. 4. Both left and right flack eye blood clot n both ears both nasal certies. 5. Abrasion over anterior abdominal wall 6. ICB insertion on leftside done. 7. Inclusion upper midline lapaertion incision and multiple abrasion and confusion injuries all over the body grevious in nature.”

3. The first respondent was the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-59-M-3971 and the respondent was the insurer of the said lorry. The claimant claimed that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent manner, in which, the driver of the lorry reversed the lorry and dashed against him.

4. A counter was filed by the second respondent denying the averments made. It was stated that the injuries suffered, did not warranted the compensation sought. It was also stated that the respondent should be provided with leave to defend, the claim on all grounds as are available under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined. PW-2 was the Doctor, who provided the disability certificate. The claimant also marked Exs. P-1 to P-11. Ex.P-2 is the copy of the Accident Register, Ex.P-3 is the discharge summary, Ex.P-4 is the O.P. Chit, Ex.P-7 was the C.T. Scan, Exs.P-8 & P-11 were the X-rays and Ex.P-10 was disability certificate.

6. The Tribunal first took up for consideration the issue of negligence. It was found that the claimant, as a Cleaner of a Lorry was giving directions to the driver of the Lorry while he, the driver, took the vehicle in reverse. The driver had reversed at high speed and had dashed against the petitioner, who sustained injuries. It was therefore held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry. It was also stated that owing to the fact that the Lorry was insured with the second respondent, the second respondent should be called upon to pay the compensation if ordered to the petitioner.

7. The Tribunal then took up the issue of compensation to be granted. In this connection, it was noted that the claimant was aged about 19 years old. He was working as a Cleaner and earned daily wages of Rs.200/- per day. The Doctor, who examined him was examined as PW-2. He gave a certificate that the claimant had suffered 90% permanent disability since he had sustained injuries over the chest region and over the cheek. He was not able to walk or sit properly. He had disability in the left eye. The disability certificate and the X-rays were marked as Exs. P-10 and P-11.

8. The Tribunal however determined the disability at 80%. The Tribunal determined that grant of Rs.2,000/- per percentage would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- ( 2000 x 80) towards 80% disability. The Tribunal also granted compensation on other heads, which were as follows:-