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.18 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the awardmade in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai. 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.18 of 2018 , is as follows:-

On 28.09.2017, at about 7.00 pm., when the petitioner was travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49-BJ-4108, keeping the extreme left side of the road, a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-BJ-1813 came in a rash and negligence manner and hit against the two wheeler. The petitioner sustained injuries, he was taken to Pattukkottai Elangovan Hospital. The petitioner was working in a construction company as a Driver and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner claim a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2018 , is as follows:- The Tractor was driven by its driver in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road, without observing the traffic. The accident has happened only due to the negligence of the driver.

4. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 14 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 awarded a sum of Rs.15,83,237/- 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 is wrong in awarding compensation by adopting multiplier method in the absence of medical evidence. The Tribunal failed to note that P.W.2, who assessed the disability, did not give evidence as to the impact of the disability, with reference to the nature of work. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the principle of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Without any proof of employment of the first respondent, the Tribunal wrongly fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- and added 40% towards future propsects. The Tribunal awarded excessive amount for pain and sufferings. The award is excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there was no evidence regarding functional disability. P.W.2 did not depose anything regarding functional disability and that adopting multiplier method is wrong on the part of the Tribunal. A judgment of this Court reported in 2020-1-TNMAC-617 (M.Chinnathambi V. S.Deepa) is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“No evidence that the claimant suffered functional disability and hence, the multiplier methods is not applicable. Percetage method was rightly applied by the Tribunal. “

7. Another judgment of this Court reported in 2022-2-TNMAC -567 (United India Insurance Co.Ltd., V. S.Sridhar) is cited, on the side of the appellant, wherein, it is stated as follows:-

“For 33% disability due to fracture on the right leg. The Doctor, who assessed the disability, not treated the claimant and the Tribunal fixed 31% disability is to be proper. The application of multiplier method is not proper in the absence of proof of functional disability. Only percentage method applied by taking Rs.3,000/- per percentage and for 31% disability, Rs.,93,000/- awarded towards disability