Disability assessments in compensation claims must adhere to statutory requirements, and compensation should accurately reflect the injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 12, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai (IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai)' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.4292 of 2014, the second respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioner therein has preferred Cross Objection No.77 of 2023 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.

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

Petitioner's case:

3. On March 23, 2014 at about 09.00 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling as an occupant in a car bearing Registration No. TN-21-AY-1697 on Chithamoor to Maduranthagam Road near Nethapakkam Aattai Company, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner endangering the public safety, and suddenly applied the brakes. As a result, the car capsized. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 30 years and was a Mason by profession earning a sum of Rs.600/- per day. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The 1^st respondent is the owner of the car involved in the accident, while the 2^nd respondent is its insurer vide Policy No.C1212532311000032 with validly for the period from June 13, 2013 to June 12, 2014 i.e., it was valid on the date of accident. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.98,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Eight Lakhs only) along with interest and costs.

First Respondent :

4. The 1^st respondent being the owner of the said car remained absent before Tribunal and therefore, he was called absent and set ex-parte.

Second Respondent's case :

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter merely denying all the petition averments. The age, income and occupation of the petitioner were denied. It was further denied that the 1^st respondent's Driver had a valid driving license and his car was insured with the 2^nd respondent at the time of accident. The claim of the petitioner was stoutly opposed as excessive. In short, the Counter is nothing more than a formal denial, seeking dismissal of the Claim Petition.

Tribunal :

6. The instant Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No.4292 of 2014 was tried jointly with M.C.O.P. Nos.4291 and 4293 of 2014 as they all arise out of one and the same accident. At trial, on the side of the petitioner in the instant Claim Petition, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.16 to Ex-P.26 were marked. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the second respondent.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of first respondent’s driver and that first respondent’s car was insured with second respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition, held the 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and awarded compensation as hereunder:

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said Award, the second respondent – Insurance Company has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Dissatisfied with the Award amount, the petitioner