The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of liability and compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2016 dated 04.08.2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Theni camp at Periyakulam.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2016 dated 04.08.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni camp at Periyakulam.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the claim petition. The respondent herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2016, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 19.11.2015. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,54,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs and Fifty Four 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.124 of 2016 is as follows:

On 19.11.2015, at about 09.15 a.m., when the petitioner was walking along the edge of Theni – Periyakulam main road, a bus bearing registration No.TN-57- N-1899 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and he sustained injuries. He was admitted in Periyakulam Government hospital and that after getting first aid, he was admitted in Madurai Rajaji hospital and he took treatment as ''inpatient'' for a period of 55 days. The left leg of the petitioner was amputated from knee level. Before the accident, the petitioner was working as Scavenger in a cinema theatre and he was earning Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation.

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

The age, profession, income, period of treatment, medical expenses, nature of injuries and disability are all denied. The petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim is excessive. The bus driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner observing the rules. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road and he sustained only simple injuries. The bus driver is not responsible for the accident.

5. On the side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked. On the side of the respondent therein, one witness was examined and no document was marked and one Court document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,54,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs and Fifty Four Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the respondent. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal failed to note that the appellant bus driver was not at all negligent. It was the respondent, who invited the accident by his carelessness and negligence. The Tribunal ought to have believed the evidence of R.W.1.The Tribunal ought not to have adopted multiplier method and the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. When the Medical Board has assessed the disability as 80%, the Tribunal is wrong in fixing the disability as 100%. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards attendant charges, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards transport expenses, which are all excessive.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that it was the rider of the two wheeler who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he fell into the bus. The copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P1. MV report was marked as Ex.P3. Chargesheet was marked as Ex.P4. R.W.1 was the driver of the bus. No independent witness w