The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining permanent disabilities and compensation in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.09.2019 and made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2018 dated 30.09.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.

2. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2018, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 16.12.2014. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Two Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2018 is as follows:

On 16.12.2014, when the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN-67-AL-1221 along the Tenkasi-Rajapalayam road near Vasudevanallur, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stray cows and turned the vehicle to right side and dashed against a van bearing registration No.TN-47-V-2391. The petitioner sustained severe injuries, fracture on the spinal cord, shoulder and in the socket of the left eye and head injury. The petitioner was taken to Puliyangudi Government Hospital and after getting first aid, he was taken to Dindigul JCB Hospital and that he took treatment as ''in patient'' from 17.12.2014 till 24.12.2014 and that he has undergone surgery on 31.12.2014. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:

The manner of the accident was wrongly stated in the petition. The time and place of the accident is denied. The car driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the opposite vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67-AL-1221 that came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, in which the petitioner was travelling. The owner and insurance company of the car bearing registration No.TN-47-AV-2391 are necessary parties to the claim petition. The age and income are all denied. The first respondent was not having valid driving licence. There was no permit for the vehicle.

5. On the side of the petitioner, one witness was examined and 19 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, no witness was examined and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,92,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Two Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the second respondent. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand and Five Hundred only) for the disability without considering the serious nature of injury on spinal cord and neck bone. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the injured was a Chartered Account and that he was not able to continue his earlier avocation as before. There was dislocation of spinal bone and the amount awarded towards pain and suffering should be enhanced. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,06,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards loss of income, which is very low. The Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier method on the basis of loss of earning capacity. The amount awarded is very low and the same is to be enhanced considering the spine injuries and the disability.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant