IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CMA.No.384 of 2025 Pon Irish Richard ... Appellant Vs.

1.Venkatesan

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, No.45, Moore Street, Chennai – 600 001.

... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order made in MCOP.No.3090 of 2016, dated 14.02.2024, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court No.1, Motor Accident Claims Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Appellants :Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents :Mr.R.Rajesh for R2 Notice Dispensed with for R1 J U D G M E N T Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come before this Court.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant suffered injury in a road accident that had occurred on 18.08.2015. It is the case of the claimant that he was riding a two wheeler at Maduravoyal Bypass Road. It was further stated by the claimant that container lorry belongs to the first respondent insured with the second respondent was parked in no parking area without any signal. Therefore, two wheeler driven by the claimant dashed against the lorry and victim had suffered grievous injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent owner of the lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The claim petition was contested only by the insurer of the lorry. The counter was filed by the second respondent denying the manner of accident, as alleged in the claim petition. The second respondent also denied the age, income etc., of the claimant.

4. The Tribunal based on evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the container lorry and quantified the compensation at Rs.9,24,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has come by way of this appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the second respondent/Insurance Company have not advanced any arguments on the questions of negligence and liability aspects. Therefore, necessary facts for considering those questions are not discussed in this judgment.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Medical Board assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 35%. The Tribunal committed a grave error in not applying multiplier method. He further submitted that the claimant suffered brain injury and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earning etc., are on the lower side.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the claimant has not produced any documents to show that he suffered functional disability and hence the Tribunal was justified in calculating the compensation under the head disability on percentage basis. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are fair and reasonable.

8. In order to prove the disability suffered by the claimant, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1. A perusal of the same would suggest the claimant suffered head injuries and the disability percentage was fixed as 35%. It is seen from Exs.P5 to P7- discharge summaries the claimant was in hospital from 18.08.2015 to 01.09.2015 and 31.03.2016 to 03.04.2016, total period of 19 days. A perusal of the discharge summary marked as Ex.P5 would indicate that the claimant was admitted for severe Traumatic Brain injury, brain stem contusion, Tentorial Haemorrhage, multiple Craniofacial fractures and Ex.P7 would indicate that he was admitted for orofacial Residual deformity (Post-Traumatic) and discharged with advice to undergo 40 minutes of brisk walking. The claimant has not produced any documents to show that he continue