JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and Decree dated 30th June 2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1641 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Spl., District Court at Tiruppur.)

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree in M.CO.P.No. 1641 of 2017 dated 30.06.2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (The Principal District Sessions Judge, Tirupur).

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as described before the Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated, on 28.11.2016 at about 14 hrs., the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 38 AK 2253 from east to west in Naduvacherry to Cheyyur near Murugan Thottam Avinasi. At that time a vehicle bearing registration No.TN 39 BJ 6033 TATA ACE driven by its driver cum owner in a rash and negligent manner without adhering the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the petitioner.

3. Due to the said accident the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries on his left Patella, left intertrochant eric and mid third shaft of femur & left clavicle. Immediately the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital at Tirupur and thereafter to Ganga Hospital Coimbatore and was admitted as in-patient. The petitioner was undergoing treatment for two months and he is in continuous treatment. The petitioner has spent huge amount for the said medical treatment.

4. The claimant was employed in Bhavani Cavincare Diary. Tirupur as a milk supplier and earned Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is unable to go for work. The petitioner is the only bread winner of the family. The injuries sustained by the petitioner is permanent in nature. Hence, the petitioner filed the above petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him from the respondents.

5. The first respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the second respondent in its counter stating that the alleged accident took place only due to the careless riding of the petitioner at the time of the accident. The age, health and occupation of the petitioner mentioned in the petition was also denied. According to the 2nd respondent the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive.

7. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident took place only due to the negligent act of the first respondent vehicle driver and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,46,289, as compensation to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.

8. Through this appeal, the appellant insurance company challenged the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the petitioner's permanent disability to be 70% based on the certificate issued by the Medical Board, which is on the higher scale.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company contended that the award granted by the Tribunal at Rs.13,46,289/- is very excessive and unjustified. The Tribunal simply equated disability percentage at 70% as loss of earnings without following the procedure laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. and affirmed in Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and Anr. Hence, the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal requires interference.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondent would submit that the Tribunal has thoroughly analysed the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and upon perusing Ex.C1 disability certificate issued by the medical board has rightly fixed the disability at 70% as partial permanent disability for the claimant. His further contention is that due to the said accident, the claimant has lost his earning capacity and therefore the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplication and awarded just compensation towards loss of income. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal calls for no int