IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the assessment and enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a road transport accident, considering contributory negligence, disability, notional income, and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2020 made in MCOP No.141 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.)

1. The claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MCOP No.141 of 2017 dated 23.06.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.

2. The factum of accident, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the respondents 1 & 2, vehicle being insured with the third respondent/insurance company and validity of the policy are not in dispute.

3. It remains to be stated that based upon the evidence of appellant as PW1 in the cross examination, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant for not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Accordingly, the finding rendered by the Trial Court with regard to negligence is hereby confirmed and the appellant is entitled to 90% of the compensation amount.

4. On the point of quantum of compensation, heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the third respondent / insurance company and perused the records.

5. Though notice has been served on the respondents 1 & 2 and their names have been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel.

6. The appellant/claim petitioner has filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road transport accident happened on 05.03.2017. In order to substantiate the claim, the appellant had examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. Medical Board Certificate and explanation offered by the Joint Director of Medical Board were marked as Exs.C1 & C2.

7. On perusal of Ex.P5-wound certificate and Ex.P7-discharge summary alongwith Exs.C1 & C2, as stated supra, this Court finds that the Medical Board has assesed the disability as right lower limb 35%, right upper limb 15% and left upper limb 10%. Based upon Ex.C2 - explanation, the Joint Director of Medical Board has assessed the disability as 60% partial permanent disability. Hence, the Trial Court has calculated the disability based upon Ex.C2 as under –

8. Admitedly, under Ex.C1 – Medical Board Certificate, the appellant has suffered partial and permanent disability. PW1 as described the nature of injuries suffered by him after the accident. He had suffered communited fracture trochanter right hip, fracture neck of right femur, communited frature shaft of right femur, fracture right patella, fracture lateral condyle of right tibia, fracture fibula of right leg, communited fracture shaft of left humerus, fracture right clavicle, fracture 4 th and 6 th ribs of left side chest, fracture right hands, right side facial injury, mild head injury and soft tissue injury.

9. From the deposition of appellant as PW1, I find that due to the injuries suffered by him, there is loss of reputation and hence it is a partial and permanent disability. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the functional disability has to be fixed for the whole body. The Trial Court appears to have calculated the same and fixed the functional disability of the appellant as 30%. Hence, the functional disability fixed by the Tribunal taking into consideration the disability suffered by the appellant for the whole body cannot be termed as meagre and hence the same is hereby confirmed.

10. According to the appellant, at the time of accident he was aged 42 years working as an agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the appellant has not proved his avocation and income by producing documentary evidence. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has fix