JUDGMENT

The Insurance Company has challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in M.C.O.P.No.118 of 2011 on the ground of quantum.

2. The brief facts are as follows and the ranking of the parties herein are as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner has filed the above claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 05.04.2010. The petitioner, who is 24 years, claimed to be a machine operator (Computer Numerical Control) with M/s.Craftsman Automation Company, Coimbatore earning a monthly income of a sum of Rs.10,150/-. It is his case that on the said date, he was riding his motor- cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-66A-0063 on the Coimbatore to Avinashi Road travelling in an East-West direction. While so, as he neared Jayanthi Textiles, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-C-5802 travelling in the same direction was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without adhering to the traffic Rules and Regulations. The said vehicle dashed against the petitioner's motor-cycle, on account of which, he had fallen onto the road and sustained multiple injuries and bone fracture. The petitioner would submit that he had sustained the following grievous injuries on account of the accident.

i) Bone fracture at right pelvis ii)Bone fracture at left pelvis. iii)Bone fracture at left femur iv)Fracture at public ram;

v)Fracture left sacrum and bilateral superior and inferior public ram;

vi)Injury at kidney;

vii)Grievous injury in abdomen;

viii)Abrasion at back side of the body from shoulder till hip;

ix) Laceration injury all over the body.

The petitioner would submit he had undergone two surgeries where a plate and screw were implanted and external fixator was also fixed. That apart, he has also undergone a surgery of the abdomen.

4. The first respondent is the driver of the vehicle and second respondent is the owner of the vehicle and they were absent and ex-parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent-Insurance Company had alone contested the said claim denying the averments contained in the claim statement and also questioning the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. They had also raised a contention that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident to drive the lorry. They had also pleaded contributory negligence by contending that the petitioner was equally negligent in driving his vehicle and that the liability should also be fastened on the petitioner. They had also put the second respondent to strict proof of the fact that the lorry had a valid and subsisting fitness certificate and an effective policy on the date of the accident.

5. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence on record held that the accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent and consequently, held the third respondent liable to pay the damages to the petitioner as the insurer of the second respondent's lorry. The Tribunal taking into account the period of hospitalisation undergone by the petitioner as also the surgeries performed on him and taking note of Exs.A11,12,14 and 15, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of medical expenses and allied expenditure. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of P.W2-an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who had issued Ex.A26-Disability certificate assessed the petitioner's disability at 35.8%. The Tribunal has also relied upon Ex.A16-Pay Slip to come to the conclusion that the monthly income of the petitioner is a sum of Rs.10,150/- and taking note of the nature of the injuries has adopted a multiplier method to assess the compensation under the head of disability and arrived at a sum of Rs.4,32,000/-. No other amounts have not been granted any other head. Challenging the said Award of quantum, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

6. The only ground challen