J U D G M E N T

The claimant in M.C.O.P.No. 71 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurantakam Sub Court, Madurantakam, is the appellant herein.

2. The claimant S.Muniappan, had suffered injuries in a road accident on 17.12.2008. He was aged 22 years at that time and was working as a Mastri/Masson. The nature of the injuries which he had sufered were as follows:-

"(i) Grevious injury in his right leg feet portion (i.e) Doctors made huge surgery in his feet portion and all other injuries in all over body."

3. Muniappan was standing in front of a tea shop on 17.12.2008 at Maduranthakam GST Road at around 7 p.m. At that time, he wanted to cross the road to enter into Maduranthakam. A vehicle bearing registration No. TD Y - 5567 / Lorry owned by the first respondent before the Tribunal coming from Dindivanam to Chennai, was said to have come with great speed and without observing the road side, hit him and caused an accident leading him to suffer the aforementioned injuries. He was admitted to General Hospital at Maduranthakam and later referred to Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital. He was also admitted to Government Stanly Hospital for further treatment from 25.12.2008 and the front feet portion was amputated. He was discharged on 04.02.2009. 4. Claiming compensation for the injuries suffered, he had filed M.C.O.P.No. 71 of 2009.

5. The second respondent before the Tribunal / National Insurance Company Ltd., / Insurer of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No. TD Y - 5567 had joined issues with the claimant and put the claimant to strict proof of the manner in which the accident occurred and the nature of injuries suffered and justification for the amounts claimed as compensation towards such injuries suffered.

6. The Parties went to trial before the Sub Court Maduranthakam /

MACT and during the course of trial, the claimant examnied himself as PW-1 and examined the Doctor, namely, Kannan Isac as PW-2. He also marked EXS. P-1 to P-14. Among those documents, the relevant documents would be Ex.P-1 copy of the FIR, Exs. P-2 and P-3 which are both discharge summaries, Ex.P-5 copy of the insurance policy, Exs.P-9 & P-10 medical receipts and Exs. P-12 and P-13, photographs and Xrays and Ex.P-14 the disability certificate. The respondents did not examine any witness. They did not mark any documents.

7. The Tribunal during the course of adjudicating the issues before it took up for consideration the first issue regarding negligence and the manner in which the accident occurred and in this connection observed that the claimant had been standing in the GST Road near a tea shop and wanted to cross the road when the lorry bearing registration No.TD Y - 5567 had come in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against him causing injuries. The Tribunal held that the manner in which the lorry was driven was the cause for the accident and held accordingly. I find no materials to differ from the said findings and would affirm the same.

8. The Tribunal then took up for determination the compensation to be granted. In the absence of oral and documentary evidence with respect to the amount which the claimant earned as Masson / Mastri, the Tribunal determined that it would be appropriate to take a sum of Rs.1,000/- per disability. The disability was determined at 35% taking into account the evidence of PW-2 and the medical records and also more particularly Ex.P-14 the disability certificate. The Tribunal took the disability at 35% and by taking Rs.1,000/- per percentage had granted a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards the loss of income. The Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards nutritional foods, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses, a sum of Rs.59, 750/- towards medical bills and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income for 50 days at Rs.200/- per day and granted a total compensation at Rs.1,18,755/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimant has