The court considered the nature of injuries and relevant case law to enhance the compensation based on the finding of negligence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, against the judgement and decree, dated, 21.01.2008, made in MCOP.No.1010 of 2005, by the Sub Court (MACT) Tiruvallur.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, by the claimant, against the judgement and decree, dated, 21.01.2008, made in MCOP.No.1010 of 2005, by the Sub Court, MACT, Tiruvallur, for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimant, who was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident, has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on various heads, for the injuries, such as, fracture on bone of right leg and head, sustained by him, in a motor road accident, which took place on 27.10.2005 at 11.00 hours. The 1st Respondent herein/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The claim petition was resisted, on various grounds, by the 2nd Respondent/ Insurance Company, by filing a counter. On the side of the claimant, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined. Finding that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, owned by the 1st  Respondent herein, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, as detailed below:-

 Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been filed by the claimant.

3. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side, considered their submissions and also perused the entire evidence placed on record.

4. The Appellant herein is the claimant. The 1st Respondent herein, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte. The 2nd Respondent is the Insurance Company.

5. As regards the negligence aspect, the Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, has held that there was negligent on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident had occurred only due to the rash 2/6 S.No Category 1 50% Disability Suffered By The Claimant 50000 2 Transportation Expenses 2500 3 Extra Nourishment 2500 4 Medical Expenses 5000 5 Pain and Suffering 10000 6 Loss of Future Income 20000 Total Compensation 90000 Award Amount (Rs.) and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Since the finding, recorded by the Tribunal, with regard to the actionable negligence, has not been assailed by anyone of the Respondents herein, the said finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence aspect, fixing the same on the part of the 1st Respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. As such, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail in respect of the accident. However, the dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.

6. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Tribunal, having fixed disability at 55% due to the injuries and fractures sustained by him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the said head and further, compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of future earnings is on the lower side and no compensation was awarded for the damage to clothes.

7. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent/ Insurance Company, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

8. Though it is claimed by the claimant that he was earning a sum of Rs.200/- per day, in the absence of evidence to prove his monthly income, the Tribunal has fixed the daily income of the claimant at Rs.100/-, which is not proper and the monthly income of the claimant can be fixed a