The court affirmed that the opinion of an independent medical board is critical for assessing permanent disability, emphasizing the importance of substantiated claims for damages in accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

(A.D. Maria Clete, J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No.4481 of 2012, dated 11.06.2019, in and by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 07.07.2012.

2. On 07.07.2012, the appellant, Zeeshan Ali, was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-09-AZ-1399 along Anna Salai, Chennai, when a car bearing Registration No. TN-22-BF-6043, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came from behind in the same direction and, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant’s motorcycle. Due to the impact, the appellant was thrown off his vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fractures in both arms and internal injuries, requiring surgical intervention and hospitalisation. He was 26 years old at the time of the accident and claimed to be earning Rs.25,000 per month as a Lead Associate at The Rain Tree Hotel. He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the injuries and associated losses.

3. In his counter, the first respondent (the owner of the car bearing Reg. No. TN-22-BF-6043)denied the appellant’s version of events and asserted that the accident occurred due to the appellant’s own negligence. He stated that the appellant was riding his motorcycle in an unsteady manner, and while wobbling, suddenly came to a halt and collided with the front portion of his car. He contended that he was driving cautiously and that there was no rash or negligent driving on his part. Hence, he disclaimed liability for the accident and the resulting compensation claim.

4. In its counter, the second respondent denied the manner in which the accident was alleged to have occurred and disputed the age, occupation, income, and nature of injuries claimed by the appellant. It specifically contended that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence, which either disentitled him from claiming compensation or warranted a substantial reduction. The insurer also claimed the compensation sought was excessive, speculative, and unsubstantiated.

5. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and the doctor as PW2, and produced Exhibits P1 to P20. On the side of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were filed.

6. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s car and that the appellant/claimant was entitled to compensation. However, the Tribunal did not accept the disability assessment of 95% given by the private doctor (PW2), since the appellant did not appear before a medical board nor provided adequate justification for the same. Instead, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 20% and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under that head using the percentage method. Taking into account other heads such as pain and suffering, medical expenses, transportation, nourishment, and attendant charges, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,16,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents (owner and insurer) were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

7. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing permanent disability