The court revised the compensation based on the claimant's income and disability percentage, considering medical evidence and previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2019, made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.3320 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. The claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.3320 of 2016 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai is the appellant in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, for a sum of Rs.1,04,500/- as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- sought for in the claim petition. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus involved in the accident and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent.

2. The appellant/claimant, on 01.01.2016, in the late evening at about 07.30 p.m travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle, near Arunachalam Nagar, near Tindivanam to Vandavasi Road, met with an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent. The claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries and in respect of which he sought for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent did not choose to appear before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent/insurer filed a counter denying the various claims made by the appellant/claimant and besides also stating that the claim was exaggerated and unrealistic.

4. Before the Tribunal, Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and a Doctor by name Dr.K.J.Mathiazhagan was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, especially on the side of the 2nd respondent no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

5. The Tribunal on perusing the materials available on record and discussing the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a sum of Rs.1,04,500/- towards compensation to be paid for the injuries sustained by the appellant. Aggrieved by this award, the claimant is before this Court by way of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant as well as the 2nd respondent/insurance company.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the claimant was working as a coolie and was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and he was earning about Rs.1,000/- per day and therefore the Tribunal erred in fixing Rs.7,000/- as his monthly income. The counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, treatment taken for the same and attacked the percentage of disability fixed by the Tribunal at 10%. It is also argued by the counsel that the multiplier method ought to have been adopted for the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant. Learned counsel also agitated and argued the various other grounds in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the insurance company/2 nd respondent contended that in the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal was not in error in fixing the notional income at Rs.7,000/- and that multiplier method cannot be adopted, since the claim was based only on injuries and not on any permanent disability caused and prayed for confirmation of the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. This Court has paid anxious consideration to the rival submissions made. This Court has also carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

10. With regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal finding that there is no proof adduced by the claimant to prove his income proceeded to fix a notional income of Rs.7,000/-. This Court, considering that the claimant was a coolie, would have earned not less that Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard needs to be interfered and revised.

11. Coming to the second aspect of disability, the Tribunal has taken 10% towards disability. It is argued on behalf of the counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evide