The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the nature of injuries, disability, and future earning prospects of the appellant, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3394 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.3394 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.

2.The appellant/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.3394 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, (III Small Causes Court), Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by him in the accident that took place on 12.05.2014.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,26,300/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as compensation to the appellant/claimant under following heads:

4. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant brought the appellant/claimant before this Court as per the order of this Court dated 10.07.2023 and submitted that the appellant/claimant was a Carpenter. Due to the accident that took place on 12.05.2014, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and he could not speak loudly. He would further submit that the appellant/claimant cannot sit or stand without the help of others for the past 9 years and in future also he needs an attender. Therefore, the disability ought to have assessed as 100%. However, the Tribunal has awarded compensation only by adopting 30% disability, which is very meager. Hence, he prayed to fix the notional income of the injured at Rs.15,000/-. Further, he prayed to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future attender charges and any considerable amount towards future medical expenses.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has taken 30% disability and awarded compensation since the Medical Board has not examined the injured and the Doctor who has treated the appellant/claimant has not given disability certificate. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant as well as the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

8. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for either parties and after observing the appellant/claimant, it is clear that due to the accident that took place on 12.05.2014, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Considering the nature of avocation of the injured and the cost inflation index, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the injured at Rs.12,000/-. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and disability sustained by the appellant/claimant, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to adopt 40% disability. Further, the injured was 32 years at the time of accident and for the age of 32 years the multiplier applicable is 16 as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Tr