The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper assessment of disability, nature of injuries, and loss of income in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai.)

Common Judgment

1. C.M.A.(MD)No.69 of 2019 has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. C.M.A.(MD)No.70 of 2019 has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2017, dated 25.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

3. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2017, is as follows:-

On 29.10.2016, at about 7.00 pm., when the petitioner was riding a two wheeler, bearing Registration No.37-B-8834, along with his father - Karuppan as a pillion rider, along the Vaiyampatti - Tharagampatti main Road, keeping the left side of the road, an unregistered motorcycle bearing Engine No. JF- 33AAG4F13005, Chasis No.MBLIF33AAG413113 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction dashed against the petitioner''s two wheeler. The petitioner sustained injuries, he was admitted in Mayilampatti Government Hospital, then he was sent to Karur Government Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 20 days. The petitioner was working as a lorry driver and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

4. A brief substance of petition in M.C.O.P No.2 of 2017 is as follows:-

In the very same accident, the petitioner travelled as a pillion rider and he sustained injury. The petitioner was doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained injury and he claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

5. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in both the petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2017 is as follows:-

The respondent driver was not having valid driving licence. The age, income profession, place of accident, date of accident, time of accident, nature of injuries, medical expenses, disability, future medical expenses are all denied. The nature of accident as narrated in the petition is denied. The amount claimed is excessive.

6. Since both the claim petitions arose out of the same accident, both the petitions were taken up for joint trial. In the joint trial, 3 witnesses were examined, 13 documents were marked on the side of the petitioners. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,500/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2017 and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,33,500/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2017.

7. Against the award, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2017 has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.69 of 2017, for enhancement of compensation, on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the claimant. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant sustained fracture in the spinal card and on the right thigh and has failed to accept the percentage of disability, assessed by P.W.3 - Doctor. The Tribunal has failed to consider