Admissibility of additional evidence, assessment of disability, and calculation of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 01.06.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.400 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal.)

S. Sounthar, J.

1. Aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded to the 1st respondent /claimant in MCOP.No.400 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal), dated 01.06.2017, insurer of the offending vehicle owned by 2nd respondent has filed this appeal.

2. The 1st respondent represented by his father Ravi filed Motor Accident Claims Petition in MCOP.No.400 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Additional District, Judge, Namakkal, seeking compensation for the injury suffered by him in a road accident that occurred on 03.12.2013. According to him on that fateful day, he was riding a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN.28 AB 8001 on the left side of the road from South to North and Hero Honda Splendor Bike bearing registration No.TN 28 AE 2625 owned by 2nd respondent came in the opposite direction and was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the 1st respondent's vehicle and thereby caused accident. The 1st respondent claimed that due to accident he suffered grievous injuries which crippled his life. He further claimed that due to head injuries suffered by him, he lost his memory power and became bed-ridden. He further claimed that even for fulfilling his basic needs like taking food, water, bathing etc., he is depending on attenders. Since, he was not in a position to lead evidence before the Tribunal and narrate the facts, he filed a petition through his father.

3. The Appellant Insurance Company filed a counter specifically denying the impact of the injuries claimed by the 1st respondent. Appellant specifically denied the averments in the 1st respondent's petition that he lost his memory power and he was bed-ridden. It was also denied that the 1st respondent requires attenders for meeting the basic needs. Apart from that the appellant also disputed the negligence aspect in the counter.

4. The Motor Accident Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of eye witness-P.w.2, charge sheet-Ex.P.6 and also the admission of driver of 2nd respondent's vehicle, examined as R.W.2 who pleaded guilty before the criminal Court, held that accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the 2nd respondent's vehicle. The appellant has not assailed that finding before us. The Tribunal based on the evidences of medical witness P.W.4, came to the conclusion that victim suffered permanent disability of 68% and his day-to-day activity got hampered. The Tribunal based on the Income Tax return submitted by the 1st respondent Ex.P.15 and also evidence of Income Tax Officer who was examined as R.W.1 had fixed the annual income of the 1st respondent/ victim at Rs.1,92,000/-.

5. The Tribunal based on the finding that the 1st respondent/victim suffered disability of 68% and his day-to-day activities are affected had applied multiplier method and fixed Rs.22,19,520/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability and together with medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, expenses towards nutrition and transport, fixed total compensation at Rs.36,02,930/-. Aggrieved by the same the appellant Insurance Company has come up with this appeal.

6. The appellant Insurance Company has taken out an application for raising additional evidence in CMP.No.5471 of 2022, wherein it was averred that even during course of trial, the Trial Court advocate of the Insurance Company intimated to the higher office that there was some suppression of material facts concerning the disability suffered by the 1st respondent/victim and based on that appellant appointed a private Investigator to investiga