The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to confirm and enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the assessment of disability and entitlement to additional compensation for attendant charges and loss of marital prospects.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 03.12.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.

2. The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. He filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 10.11.2012.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent's bus driver of Bharathi bus bearing registration No.AP-03-W-5125 and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company being insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.29,93,688/- as compensation to the appellant.

4. Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant's right hand from shoulder was amputated. He took treatment as inpatient for 20 days. The Tribunal failed to consider the documents filed by the appellant and granted a meagre amount, which is not even sufficient to meet the cost of artificial limb. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P11. The appellant spent a sum of Rs.22,42,531/- for artificial limb, as mentioned in Ex.P17 is fixed on the appellant. The artificial limb fixed on the appellant is only as per Ex.P16. The Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to Exs.P16 and Ex.P17, erroneously not granted any amount for artificial limb. The parents of the appellant borrowed money and paid the cost of the artificial limb. The Tribunal, without properly appreciating the evidence of P.W.3, reduced the percentage of disability from 90% to 75%. The Tribunal mechanically reduced the percentage of disability assessed by the Doctor, Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. The appellant was an Engineering student. Due to the injuries, he could not carry out his work as he was doing earlier. The Tribunal failed to award compensation for the loss of marital prospects. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence of the appellant and the Tribunal erroneously reduced the percentage of disability from 90% to 75%. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and prayed for enhancement of compensation.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company submitted that from the materials produced by the appellant, it is seen that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, his right hand was amputated. The appellant has not produced any material to show that he is totally disabled. The appellant has not let in any evidence to show that he could not continue his studies. P.W.3 is not a reliable witness. He is not the author of the documents produced by him and he admitted that only Accounts department knows the details of the cost of artificial limb. Ex.P16 is only a xerox copy and the same cannot be relied on. Inspite of the objection by the 2nd respondent, the appellant has not produced the original of Ex.P16. In any event, the appellant or P.W.3 have not proved that the said amount was spent by the appellant. The Tribunal has properly appreciated all the materials and the appellant is not entitled for any amou