The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation based on negligence, loss of income, and medical expenses 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.20 of 2012, dated 10.07.2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sivakasi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award madein M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2012, dated 10.07.2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sivakasi. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2012, is as follows:-

On 21.08.2011, when the petitioner was riding his bicycle, a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-L-5931 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained head injuries. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.20 of 2012, is as follows:-

The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The first respondent''s driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road in a negligent manner and he invited the accident. The treatment particulars are all denied. The age and education of the petitioner are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. Four (4) witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. 1 witness was examined and 1 document was marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,27,423/- as compensation to be paid by the second respondent.

5. Against the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:- The Tribunal failed to note that the accident has happened only due to the negligence of the claimant himself. The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the income as Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal failed to note that the petitioner is only a student, aged about 13 years. Only notional income as per the schedule ought to have been taken into consideration. The Tribunal is wrong in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- towards disability, in addition to the amount, a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- was awarded towards loss of earning. The Tribunal is wrong in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 50% instead of assessing the functional disability, the Tribunal fixed the loss of earning at 50%, based on the report of the Doctor. The award of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of marital life is not sustainable. It was not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, which are all excessive. The total award amount is excessive.

6. It is seen that F.I.R -Ex.P1 was registered against the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle. The observation mahazer was marked as Ex.P2. M.V.I. Report was marked as Ex.P3. Charge sheet was marked as Ex.P4. Judgment of the criminal Court was marked as Ex.P5. There is no contradictory evidence on the side of the respondents, regarding the manner of accident. Hence, it is decided that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal is wrong in deciding that there was 50% loss of income on the side of the appellan. It is stated that only based on the report of the Doctor, the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income as 50%, which is wrong. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the functional disability, based on the evidence in an independent manner.

8. The Accident Information Report was marked as Ex.P6. Scan report