Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and awarded enhanced compensation, considering the claimant's functional disability and loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated July 28, 2023 passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court No – II), Salem' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.272 of 2022, the claimant therein has preferred CMA.No.2320 of 2024 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the second respondent therein / Insurance company has preferred CMA.No.2814 of 2024 questioning the liability imposed on it as well as the quantum of compensation awarded.

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

PETITIONER’S CASE

3. The case of the petitioner is that on May 28, 2021 at about10.30 pm, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-48-AP-6827 at Thuraiyur road, near Devarapampatti APR Bakery, at that time, a foregoing autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-48-AR- 6439, suddenly turned right without any signals, and dashed on the motor cycle, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injuries. Then, he was rushed to Government Hospital, Thuraiyur for first aid, and then shifted to Trichy Neuro – One Hospital followed by various other hospitals for better treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was a 21 year old Diploma holder, earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- monthly. Due to the accident, the petitioner became completely disabled and he could not do his work / day to day chores as before. Hence the petitioner filed the original petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/ (Rupees One crore only) from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein, he admitted the factum of accident but disputed the manner of accident. He stated that the accident occurred due to the disobedience of traffic rules and norms by the petitioner and hence, the first respondent is not responsible for the accident. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent, who is the insurer of the first respondent’s autorickshaw filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner was riding his motor vehicle without any valid driving licence and without wearing helmet. While the first respondent drove his vehicle in an average speed observing traffic rules and norms, it is the petitioner who failed to maintain adequate distance with the foregoing first respondent’s vehicle. Due to his speed, the petitioner was not able to control his motorcycle, and dashed on the rear side of the first respondent’s vehicle. The petitioner being the tort-feasor, is not entitled to any compensation. The age, occupation and the monthly income as averred by the petitioner are denied. Accordingly, it prayed to dismiss the petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. In order to prove the statements made in the claim petition, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.18 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Jeeva was examined as R.W.1 and Ex- R.1 was marked. Ex-C.1 – Disability Certificate along with X-Ray was also marked.

7. The Tribunal based on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR) and the evidence of P.W.1, came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the first respondent’s vehicle. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took Rs.10,000/- as notional income, added 40% future prospects, applied multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation of Rs.30,24,000/- under the head of loss of earning power and further awarded compensation under various heads, as tabulated hereunder:-

8. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2320 of 2024 praying for enhancement of compensation; the second respondent / insurance company has filed the appeal in CMA.No.2814 of 202