The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering factors such as loss of earning capacity, pain and sufferings, and future prospects.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.537 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Krishnagiri.)

1.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation granted to the claimant as per the award dated 15.07.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.537 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Krishnagiri, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,95,600/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The case of the claimant is as follows:

On 24.04.2007 at about 12.00 hours in the mid night, he was walking on the left side of Rayakottai to Denkanikottai Road, near Balaji Tomato Mandi, at that time, a Mahindra Pick-up Van, driven by its driver bearing Registration No.TN 30 H 5508 belongs to the second respondent came in uncontrollable speed, lost control and hit on the claimant, causing injuries to him. A Criminal case was registered against the driver of the goods vehicle in Crime No.262 of 2007 under Sections 279, 337 IPC on the file of the Rayakottai Police Station. Hence, the claimant has filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained to him in the road accident.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first and second respondents, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were remained ex-parte and have not contested the claim.

5. The third respondent insurer of the goods vehicle filed counter and contented that the accident was not occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the van and the claimant has suddenly attempted to cross the road, which resulted in causing accident. Hence, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. The claim amount is also on the higher side and there is no permanent disability sustained by him, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and one Dr.M.Devendiran was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documents marked.

7. The Tribunal in point No.1 has held that the first respondentdriver is the tortfeasor and in point No.2, after assessing the injuries, awarded a sum of Rs.5,95,600/- as compensation to the claimant.

8. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no document placed on record to show the avocation of the injured and the disability assessed for the injuries sustained by him is on the higher side, hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be modified.

10. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant submits that after considering the evidence placed on record, more particularly, the evidence of the Doctor, who assessed the disability, the Tribunal has awarded compensation and the same is just and fair and the same is not excessive and prays to confirm the award.

11. I have considered the rival submissions of both sides and also perused the records.

12. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has contended that he was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month by doing agricultural and vegetable business. But the claimant was not able to prove the income by way of producing any supporting documents or materials, hence, the Tribunal notionally fixed monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2007 and the notional income fixed by the Tribunal could not be held as