The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for motor accident injuries based on the Medical Board's assessment and relevant legal principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 21.10.2016.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 00.30 hours, when he was traveling in a Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN-32-T-9999, owned by the 2nd respondent, along Villupuram to Pondicherry NH 45 Road, near Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Valavanur, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the backside of the bullock cart and capsized the vehicle. The accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the car owned by the 2nd respondent. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and hence, filed the said claim petition, claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent and appellant, as owner and insurer of the said vehicle respectively.

4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant, insurer of the vehicle, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent permitted the driver of the vehicle to drive the same without possessing valid driving license, permit and insurance and hence, violated the policy conditions. For such violation of policy conditions, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has claimed compensation under permanent disability and loss of earning, which if awarded, would amount to awarding compensation twice towards same head. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, examined one Chandrasekar, Panchayat Secretary as P.W.2, Dr.Muthaiyan as P.W.3 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The appellant-Insurance Company examined one Lio as R.W.1, Dr.Raju as R.W.2, Venkatesan, Regional Transport Officer as R.W.3 and marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The disability certificate was marked as Court document, Ex.C1.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.61,90,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 23.02.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.694 of 2017, the appellant- Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the absence of any treatment record, the Tribunal erred in granting compensation based on the report of the Medical Board. The 100% disability assessed by Medical Board is not in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The amounts granted for loss of earning and attendant charges are excessive. The Tribunal, without any evidence an