Compensation adjustments must comply with judicial standards, specifically addressing the need for functional disability evidence rather than merely applying multiplier methods.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the Decree and Judgment dated 21.02.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.548 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner is the claimant, the respondents 1 and 3 are the owners of the vehicle and the respondents 2 and 4 are the Insurance Companies before the Tribunal.

4. The brief fact of the case are as follows:

According to the petitioner, on 30.05.2017, he was driving a Taurus Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 52 J 6676 on Hosur – Krishnagiri National Highway at about 03.00 hours near Kundarapalli over bridge, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 23 AP 5002 with tyre load was stopped in the road without any signal and the petitioner could not identify the parked lorry and stop his Taurus Lorry. As a result, the petitioner dashed behind the parked lorry bearing Registration No.TN 23 AP 5002. The petitioner sustained fracture of right tibia and fracture of calcaneus and he was admitted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Krishnagiri. After first aid treatment, he was shifted to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore and treated as an inpatient till 02.06.2017. A case was registered in Crime No.197/2017 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC by Gurubarapalli Police, Krishnagiri District. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.548 of 2017, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,34,400/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first respondent was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and did not see the lorry parked on the road had dashed behind the parked Lorry. She further submitted that though the injury sustained by the first respondent is simple in nature, the Tribunal has awarded excessive Compensation which is not sustainable. Hence, she prayed for appropriate orders.

6.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 23 AP 5002 was stopped in the road without any signal, the first respondent could not identify the parked lorry and stop his Taurus Lorry. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened are not disputed. This appeal has been filed questioning the quantum of compensation as well negligence.

9.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and on the side of the petitioner, 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On the side of the third party witness, a Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.X1.

10.The Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs.6,80,400/- for physical disability, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment expenses, Rs.5,000/- for attender charges, Rs.10,000/- for transport charges, Rs.2,69,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities and arrive