JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 12.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the decree and judgment dated 12.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The Cross Objection was filed to enhance the judgment and decree of the claims Tribunal in its award dated 12.01.2018 and made in MCOP.No.231 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that he is merely questioning about the compensation awarded towards the medical expenses. He would further submit that the claimant was hospitalised for 20 days. With regard to the same, the medical bills were produced before the Tribunal to an extent of Rs.5,32,526/- and the Tribunal had awarded the compensation towards medical bills to an extent of Rs.5,22,190/-. He would further submit that since the injured was hospitalised only for 20 days, the medical expenses claimed is on the higher side. Thereafter, he had also questioned with regard to the amount awarded towards the loss of income for a sum of Rs.19,500/-.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the cross objector would submit that the disability was assessed at 40% by the Doctor, who had examined the injured. However, the Tribunal had taken only 30% of disability into consideration and awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage. She would further submit that the accident was occurred on 04.01.2018 and the injured was aged 60 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered and awarded higher amount towards compensation for disability. Further, she would fairly submit that as far as the medical expenses is concerned, all the documentary evidences were produced before the Tribunal and the same were marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and nothing has been culled out by the insurance company. Therefore, she would contend that there is no justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the medical expenses is on the higher side and she prayed this Court to fix a fair compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company as well as cross objector and also perused the materials available on record.

6. As far as the medical expenses is concerned, this Court had gone through the documents, which were relevant to medical expenses. That apart, those medical bills were marked through PW1 and in the course of Trial proceedings, the insurance company was given opportunity to examine the said PW1. However, nothing has been culled out by the insurance company about the veracity of the documents with regard to the medical bills, which were produced before this Court. Under these circumstance, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the insurance company with regard to the medical bills filed before the Tribunal.

7. As far as the loss of income of Rs.19,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the claimant is aged 60 years and he was hospitalised for nearly 20 days to treat the injuries, which shows that due to disability, he may unable to work for a period of 4 months and hence, this Court feels that the loss of income awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Further, this Court is inclined to award the compensation of a sum of Rs.30,000/- as loss of income.

8. As far as the compensation with regard to the disability is concerned, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- by taking 30% of disability into consideration. However, the disability assessed by Doctor is at 40%. Hence, thi