Compensation for personal injury must reflect the severity of injuries and long-term impacts on the victim's life, including loss of income and future medical needs.

JUDGMENT :

J.NISHA BANU, J.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated January 20, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1184 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, at Chennai and enhance the compensation.

Feeling aggrieved by the 'Award dated January 20, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1184 of 2017’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’ for clarity and convenience] by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai' [henceforth ‘Tribunal’ for brevity], the appellant / petitioner has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE:

3. On the fateful day viz., November 29, 2016, at about 09.00 hours, when the petitioner was proceeding in North to South direction opposite to K.G.Signature Club, Service Road, Nolambur, Chennai – 600017 in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-13-E-8323 while wearing helmet, a car bearing Registration No.TN-18-E-0018 proceeding in South to North (opposite direction) zigzaggedly at over speed without observing traffic rules in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner was knocked off the motorcycle and consequently, suffered spinal cord fracture, head injury and multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Then, petitioner was rushed to Sundaram Medical Foundation, Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai and thereafter, also obtained treatment from other private hospitals at Chennai. The driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN-18-E-0018 alone is responsible for the accident. The first respondent is the owner of the Car and the second respondent is its insurer. Therefore, the petitioner filed Original Petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,00,000/- from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. The first respondent remained absent and hence, was set ex-parte before the Tribunal on October 4, 2017.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE:

5. The second respondent / Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the Claim Petition, including the manner of accident. Further, it is stated therein that the alleged accident was not reported by the first respondent to the second respondent and documents such as the vehicle policy copy, driving license of the driver, etc., have not been produced. Further that the petitioner's claim amount and the interest claimed are excessive. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the Original Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.18 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, neither any witness nor any document was marked. The Disability Certificate issued by the ‘Regional Medical Board, Government Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital, Chennai’ ['Medical Board' for short] was marked as Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), concluded that there is no contra evidence available on record to disprove the manner of accident and other averments made by the second respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN-18-E-0018. Considering the age of the petitioner at the time of accident and relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 18. Further, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Comp