The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the reasonableness of the assessment of disability, medical expenses, and other components of the compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5970 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 06.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5970 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.5970 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The 1st respondent herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 24.01.2012.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider-cum-owner of the motorcycle, the 2nd respondent herein and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,03,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

4. Challenging the quantum of compensation in the award dated 06.03.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.5970 of 2012, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the assessment of disability by P.W.2/Doctor is on the higher side, as the disability certificate issued by him is without any basis and the Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of Rs.75,000/- towards disability. After initial course of treatment, the 1st respondent / claimant has not taken any subsequent or continuous treatment. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings, extra nourishment, attendant charges and transportation are highly excessive. He would further contend that the Tribunal, in the absence of any proof for medical expenses incurred by the 1st respondent, has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and further awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is without any basis. The Doctor who treated the 1st respondent was also not examined. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for reducing the quantum of compensation.

6. Rather the learned counsel for 1st respondent would contend that P.W.2/Doctor after examining the 1st respondent has assessed the percentage of disability at 30% and issued Ex.P8/disability certificate to that effect. But, the Tribunal without giving any valid reason, has reduced the percentage of disability from 30% to 25% and granted compensation only for 25% of disability at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. The 1st respondent has taken treatment as inpatient in the Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai from 24.01.2012 to 25.01.2012, then he was admitted at Puttur Bone Setting Hospital on 26.01.2012 and taken outpatient treatment for six months and produced Ex.P4 / OP chits to that effect and the compensation towards transportation is reasonable. The 1st respondent was aged 5 years at the time of accident and hence, the amounts awarded under pain and sufferings and extra nourishment are just and reasonable. The 1st respondent spent considerable amounts towards medicines and hence, the compensation awarded towards medical expenses and future medical expenses are reasonable. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive and to strengthen his aforesaid arguments, following judgments are referred to and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. (i)National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thanjavur Vs. Singaram @ Singaru and another reported in [2014 (1) TNMAC 822], wherein it has been held that though a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded for medical expenses, is not supported by any document, yet it could be seen from th