The main legal point established is the determination of compensation for injuries under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of the multiplier 15' based on the petitioner's loss of income and disability.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.675 of 2004 dated 31.01.2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli.)

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed as against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge), at Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.675 of 2004 dated 31.10.2011 by the appellant/second respondent/insurance company, challenging the quantum of the award.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed herein as per the rank in M.C.O.P.No.675 of 2004.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as follows:- This is a case of injury wherein the petitioner/claimant had filed the petition limiting his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which happened on 25.10.2003. On 25.10.2003, while the petitioner was returning after work along the Trichy-Lawsons Road in his cycle in the left extreme near Vestry School Roundana at about 09.30 a.m., a auto belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No.TN-09-J-0437 came from the south to north and dashed against the petitioner's cycle and as the result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was admitted in Arun hospital, Thillai Nager, Tiruchirappalli on the same day and after undergoing surgery for his fracture in right leg, he was discharged after a month on 25.11.2003. Hence, seeking compensation, the petitioner has filed claim petition.

4. The first respondent is the owner of the auto. The second respondent is the insurance company with which the first respondent's auto was insured. Refuting the allegations made in the claim petition, a counter was filed by the second respondent.

5. The learned Tribunal has framed two issues. Two witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the petitioner and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Neither witnesses nor any documents were marked on the side of the respondents. The first respondent was called absent and set exparte. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence and considering the arguments putforth by respective parties, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent  driving of the driver of the auto, which is owned by the first respondent. On the basis of Ex.P2 wound certificate, the learned Tribunal has fixed the age of the petitioner as 36 years. The petitioner in his evidence deposed that he was working as Tinkering worker at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/-. On the basis of Ex.P2 wound certificate, Ex.P5 medical bills, Ex.P7 disability certificate and the evidence of P.W.2 Dr.Rajendran, it was concluded that the petitioner's right hip and leg movement has become partially disfunctional and as the result of which, the petitioner could not sit, stand or work for a long time, for which the learned Tribunal has fixed 32% for partial permanent disability and as per Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier 15' was adopted. For loss of income, the learned Tribunal has calculated as Rs.1,72,800/- (Rs.3,000x12x32%x15). Further the learned Tribunal has passed the award under the following heads:-

6. Challenging the same, the appellant/second respondent/insurance company has filed this Civil