The court modified the compensation awarded to reflect the severity of injuries and permanent disability, establishing that compensation must adequately address loss of earnings and future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Dissatisfied with the Award dated July 26, 2023 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes), Chennai' in M.C.O.P.No.2314 of 2020, the petitioner therein has filed 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 May 17, 2020 at about 14.30 hours, when the petitioner was waiting to turn east near Indira Nagar Railway Station Signal, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai, on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-14-F-5140, properly wearing a helmet, a Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-59-BJ-4810 driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction, dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle, due to which, the petitioner fell down and suffered fracture at right leg and hip as well as multiple grievous injuries all over his body. The driver of the Mahindra Bolero Jeep alone is responsible for the accident. The 1 st respondent, being the owner of the jeep and the 2 nd respondent being the insurer of the jeep, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the Original Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4.  The first respondent is the owner of the Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No.TN-59-BJ-4810. He did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the Original Petition. Hence, he was called absent and set ex-parte by the Tribunal on February 23, 2021.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5.  The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter, which is nothing more than a formal denial of all the petition averments, seeking dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6.  Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.13 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the second respondent. Disability Certificate issued by Regional Medical Board, Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai was marked as Ex-C.1.

7.  The Tribunal, upon hearing either side and perusing the evidence available on record, relied on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), Ex-P.3 - Charge Sheet and the evidence of P.W.1 to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1 st respondent's jeep. The Tribunal further held there is no evidence available on record to question or contradict the manner of accident alleged by the petitioner. Since the 1 st respondent's jeep was insured with the 2 nd respondent – Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,39,800/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as tabulated hereunder:

8.  Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

ARGUMENTS:

9.  Mr.K.Suryanarayanan, learned Counsel for the appellant / petitioner argued that the petitioner was working as a Car Driver under one Advocate by name Srinivasan and earned a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month as well as Rs.100/- per day as Batta. Due to the accident, the petitioner is unable to perform his job as well as carry out his routine as he used to before the accident. The petitioner was admitted in Hospitals multiple times as in-patient, totally for 126 days. The pet