IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH CMA No.2841 of 2022 Prakash .. Appellant .Vs.

1.Dhanasekaran

2.National Insurance Co., Ltd., 2nd Floor, 81-D, Chetty Street Opp: Bus Stand Thiruchengode Taluk Namakkal District. .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment in MCOP No.986 of 2016 dated 22.7.2022, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Paraneedharan For Respondents : Mr.S.Arunkumar [R2]

No appearance [R1]

JUDGMENT

The claimant, who is the injured in this case, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal, in MCOP No.986 of 2016 dated 22.7.2022.

2.The case of the appellant is that he was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler that was driven by one Yuvaraj on 25.7.2014 and at about 6.30 pm., when the vehicle was crossing Kendriya Vidhyalaya Cross, the rider of the vehicle had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, he lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle skidded and the claimant fell down and sustained the following injuries:

1. Communited Fracture in Base 5^th Metacarpal bone.

2.Open Fracture Grade IIIB Compound Comminuted Fracture in Head of Shaft 3^rd Metacarpal bone.

3.Fracture of Shaft 4^th Metacarpal Right Heel and Fracture Hand/Neck Hand/Neck of 2,3,4,5^th Metatarsal Right Foot.

3.The Medical Board assessed the disability suffered by the claimant and issued a disability certificate marked as Ex.X-1 by assessing permanent disability of 20%. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation.

4.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the 1^st respondent. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.2,09,800/- in the following manner:

5.The above compensation was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest @ 7.5% p.a.

6.The claimant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation.

7.Heard Mr.C.Paraneedharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent Insurance Company. The name of the 1^st respondent has been printed in the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

8.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. This Court has also carefully gone through the award passed by the Tribunal.

9.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation that has been fixed by the Tribunal under various heads is on the lower side and it requires enhancement. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has fixed a reasonable compensation in this case and the same does not require the interference of this Court.

10.The nature of injuries that were sustained by the claimant has already been referred supra. The claimant in this case was a lorry cleaner. He had undergone treatment