The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence and modified the compensation awarded, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of damages in personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 19, 2019 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Judge, Erode' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.381 of 2017, the second respondent therein - Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to set aside the Award.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE IN BRIEF

3. On July 3, 2016, at about 07.00 a.m., the petitioner was riding his TVS Star City two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-47- AF-2272, near Aathikkapallam Petrol Bunk, on the leftmost side of Velayuthampalayam to TNPL Road, in north to south direction. At that time, the first respondent, who was riding his Hero Pleasure two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-47-AE-4730 ahead of the petitioner’s vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, swerved right and collided with the petitioner's two-wheeler. Due to the sudden impact, the petitioner was thrown off his two-wheeler and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries to his head, shoulder, and both knees. Immediately, the petitioner was given first aid at the Government Hospital, Velayuthampalayam, and then shifted to Amaravathy Hospital, Karur. Later, he was admitted to KMCH (Hospital), Coimbatore for further treatment. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was a 25 years old apprentice at Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL), Pugalur, Karur, earning a monthly salary of Rs.45,000/-. According to the petitioner, the first respondent, as the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle (Hero Pleasure two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-47- AE-4730), is responsible for the accident. The second respondent is the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle. Therefore, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent, the owner of Hero Pleasure motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-47-AE-4730, was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal on July 3, 2017.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE

5. The second respondent filed a counter before the Tribunal on February 6, 2018, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. The second respondent stated that the first respondent, being the driver-cum- owner of the Hero Pleasure motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-47- AE-4730, did not inform the second respondent about the accident, as required by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also stated that neither the petitioner nor the first respondent possessed valid driving license, insurance certificate, or vehicle registration certificate at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the claim petition was contested on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the insurer of the TVS Star City Plus bearing Registration No. TN-47-AF-2272 was not impleaded.

5.1. The second respondent filed another counter on February 27, 2018, denying the averments made in the petition. It contended that there is no clinical evidence to prove that the head injury allegedly sustained by the petitioner in the accident rendered him bedridden and unconscious.

5.2. The second respondent filed another counter on September 4, 2018, denying the allegation that the petitioner was unable to take care of himself and engage in his day-to-day activities. Further contended that, the enhanced claim made by the petitioner is baseless, and the petitioner is required to provide strict proof of the same.

5.3. The second respondent filed an additional counter stating that the petitioner had not provided any documents supporting his enhanced compensation claim of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and the other expenses claimed under various heads in the petition were de