J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P. No.163 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No.163 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. The first respondent/petitioner filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident that took place on 02.02.2017.

3. According to first respondent/claimant, on 02.02.2017 at about 20:45 hours, while he was proceeding towards Jolarpettai near Sacred Heart College in his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN 23 BW 2522, a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 52 C 4448 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. In that accident, he sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the Hospital. Hence, the first respondent filed a claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant and second respondent.

4. The second respondent/owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant filed a counter statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the two wheeler i.e., first respondent; and that the first respondent did not have valid driving license at the time of the accident. They also denied that the first respondent was admitted as an inpatient in the Hospital from 03.02.2014 to 07.03.2014 and stated that in any event the compensation claimed by the first respondent is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked eighteen documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The appellant neither marked any document nor examined any witness on their side.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said lorry to pay a sum of Rs.19,27,598/- as compensation to the first respondent/claimant.

8. Against the said award dated 16.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of

2014, granting compensation to the first respondent, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the award of the Tribunal granting compensation by adopting multiplier method is erroneous; that the first respondent has not established that he had suffered functional disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident; that the first respondent had renewed his license in the year 2020 for driving transport vehicles and has also produced copy of the said licence. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this also confirms the fact that the first respondent had not suffered any functional disability. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 581 (SC) in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr and the judgment of this court in the following cases -

(i) 2016 (1) TNMAC 731 (MAD-DB) [United India Insurance company ltd. v. S.Murugesh and Others]

(ii)2013 (1) TNMAC 47 (MAD-DB) [The New India Assurance Company v. E.Poonurangan]

(iii)2018 (1) TNMAC 472 (MHC) [Managing Director, TNSTC v.

P.Prasanth @ Nanthakumar.

(iv)2018 (1) TNMAC 670 (MHC) [ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

R.Devika]

(v)2019 (1) TNMAC 635 (MHC) [Esakki v. Managing Director]

wherein according to him in similar circumstances, this Court had awarded compensation by adopting percentage method. The learned counsel furthe