The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance compensation based on the cost of living and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in MCOP No.928 of 2017, dated 26.07.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.07.2019 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.928 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal.

2. The appellant filed M.A.C.T.O.P.No.928 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Namakkal, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 06.06.2017.

3. It is the case of the appellant that on 06.06.2017 at about 3:00 PM while she was walking on the Vaiyappamalai to Mallasamudram Main road, Trichengode near Kotapalayam Petrol Bunk, the first respondent who was riding a moped bearing reg.no.TN 34 V – 7656 (TVS XL Super Heavy Duty) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant; that the appellant sustained multiple injuries on account of the said accident and filed a petition claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent filed counter statement denying the averments made in the petition and also submitted that the accident did not take place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The second respondent further submitted that since the first respondent did not have a valid driving license, the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked eleven documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P11. The second respondent marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.4. However, no witness was examined on the side of the second respondent.

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed on the side of the appellant as well as the second respondent held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent act of the first respondent and also found that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- and directed the second respondent to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent, since the rider of the motorcycle did not possess driving license at the time of accident.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Mr.T.S.Arthanareeswaran, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Tribunal had rightly fixed the disability of the appellant as 15%, had awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- for a percentage of disability. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of this Court in M.Chinnathambi Vs. S.Deepa and another reported in CDJ 2020 MHC 1013 in support of his submission and submitted that since the accident took place in the year 2017, a sum of Rs.5000/- has to be fixed per percentage of disability. The learned counsel further submitted that since a plate was fixed on the left ankle of the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under future medical expenses. The compensation awarded under the heads Transport Expenses, Extra Nourishment, Loss of Income, Pain and Sufferings also needs not to be enhanced and prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. Per Contra, Mr.N.Anbumurugan, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the factors and had awarded the just compensation and there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. He fu