The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the nature of injuries and evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicle Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and enhance the award amount in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 28.07.2011.)

1. This appeal is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant is the claimant. The respondents are the respondents in the claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2009, is as follows:

On 21.03.2009, at about 3.20 p.m., when the petitioner was travelling in a Mahindra Xylo car bearing registration number TN 72 AC 6669, along the Chennai - Tirunelveli Road, near Parakiyur Primary Health Centre, a lorry bearing registration number TN 64 C 4802 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car. The petitioner sustained injuries and he claimed a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent is as follows:

The age, income and profession of the petitioner are denied. The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. It was the car driver who without observing the road rules, suddenly tried to cross the road and invited the accident. The owner of the car and the insurer of the car, are necessary parties to the case. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent is as follows:

The petitioner sustained only simple injuries. The income of the petitioner is to be proved. Only on the basis of the surveyor report, a sum of Rs.4,46,662/- was awarded to the petitioner towards damages to his own vehicle and that amount was already received by the petitioner on full satisfaction. The damaged spare parts are changed after the accident. The old spare parts are with the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount towards damages to the vehicle. The case has been dismissed as to the damages to the vehicle.

5. Two(2) witnesses were examined and twenty four (24) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. One(1) witness was examined and six(6) documents were marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,89,289/- as compensation.

6. Against the award, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

The Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries ie., there was fracture in the right leg, right hip joint, right hand and there were multiple injuries all over the body. The Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses. Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of earning power, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of expectations of life and pray for the enhancement of compensation.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the disability is fixed at 39%, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,89,289/- which is very low. Only Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability was awarded by the Tribunal. The sum has to be enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. The amount awarded towards pain and sufferings, transport expenses, extra nourishment are to be increased.

8. A judgment of this Court reported in 2013(2) TN MAC 583 in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs G.Ramesh and another, is cited, wherein this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability.

9. On the side of the respondent it is stated that adopting multiplier method is not necessary. P.W.2, the Doctor has deposed that the claimant can do his day-to-day activities. The accident took place in the year 2009 and at that time, Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability was the norms and that there is no grounds sufficient enough to interfere with the orders of th