The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering factors such as medical expenses, loss of income, disability, and pain and sufferings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 29.06.2018, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Special Sub Court, Dindigul.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to enhance the compensation amount in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Special Sub Court, Dindigul, dated 29.06.2018. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, is as follows:-

On 03.08.2016, at about 05.30 pm., when the petitioner was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-58-P-0880 keeping the left edge of the road, a Milk van bearing Registration No.TN-57-AB-6798 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was taken to Dindigul Government Hospital and after getting first aid, he was admitted in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was effective. The petitioner was working as a sales agent in S.T.C. Agencies, Oddanchatram and he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner claim a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P. No.45 of 2017, is as follows:-

The rider of the Motor cycle was responsible for the accident. It was the petitioner, who came along the middle of the road and the petitioner rubbed the two wheeler along the left side body of the vehicle that belonged to the first respondent and he invited the accident. The F.I.R was registered. Only 3 days after the alleged occurrence. The age, income, profession, nature of injuries, disability, medical expenses and period of treatment are all denied. The loss of income and rate of interest are all excessive. The petition to be dismissed.

4. One (1) witness was examined and Five (5) documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. 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.2,58,500/- and after deducting 10%, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 2,33,000/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the appellant - claimant has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:-

5.1. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed for. The Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained grievous injury in the head and both the hands and the claimant took treatment as inpatient from 03.08.2016 till 01.10.2016. The appellant is permanently disabled. The gravity of the injuries and sufferings of the claimant are to be taken into consideration. The claimant has proved that he spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, but, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,500/-, which is very low. The appellant was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, but, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income as Rs.200/- per day and has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for a period of 5 months. 45% disability is permanent in nature and the Tribunal is wrong in awarding loss of income only for a period of 5 months.

5.2. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,30,000/- for disability, which is very low. The Tribunal ought to have considered that there was 3 grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards neutrious food, Rs.1,000/- towards attender charges, which are all very low.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant was inpatient for a pe