The court ruled that compensation for permanent disability should utilize a multiplier method based on the claimant's income and the severity of disability, emphasizing the importance of accurate assessments in awarding damages.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company has filed CMA No.2655 of 2021.

2. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the Cross Obj.No.101 of 2021.

3. Both the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objection have been filed as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.170 of 2013, dated 19.06.2018.

4. According to the first respondent/ claimant, on 05.01.2011, when he was travelling as a pillion rider in his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 37 AH 1936, driven by his friend N.Karthik Kamal, the fourth respondent herein, a Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 37 AE 4394, driven by the first respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant suffered head injury. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The appellant herein/ insurance company, insurer of the offending vehicle filed counter and contested the claim petition, by denying the manner of accident as narrated in the claim petition. The appellant also denied the income, age and earning capacity of the claimant.

6. Before Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW1 and his employer was examined as PW2. The Doctor, who issued disability certificate to the claimant was examined as PW3 and the owner of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1. On behalf of the claimant, 18 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to E.P18 and on behalf of the insurance company, no document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, based on the available records, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj pulsar motorcycle belonging to the second respondent herein and hence, the appellant herein/ insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal fixed quantum of compensation and also fixed 15% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, as he failed to wear helmet at the time of accident. Accordingly, after deducting 15% towards contributory negligence, the insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,02,438/- as compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company preferred the appeal, whereas, the claimant has preferred the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company would submit that the claimant failed to lead any independent evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, insured with the appellant and hence the Tribunal committed error in fixing 85% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, insured with the appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the claimant/cross objector by taking this court to the evidence of PW1, Ex.P1 FIR would submit that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, insured with the appellant. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought not have fixed 15% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant/cross objector. On the question of quantum, learned counsel further submits that as per the direction issued by the Tribunal, the claimant appeared before it and it was recorded by the Tribunal that th