JUDGMENT

[Made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J]

The Insurance Company is on appeal. Challenge is to the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.28,45,682/- for injuries suffered by the claimant/first respondent in a motor accident that occurred on 28.01.2017 at about 07.30 hours.

2. According to the claimant, when he was riding his Hero Splendour motorcycle from Paruveedhi towards his house on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-90- BT-0507 belonging to the second respondent herein drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules, in the opposite direction and hit against the motorcycle resulting in very serious injuries to the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered a fracture on the left femur and other injuries in the abdomen. He was admitted in the Srinivasa Speciality Hospital at Hosur as an inpatient. A case was registered by the Shoolagiri police against the driver of the bus. Contending that the driver of the bus was solely responsible for the accident and that the injuries have resulted in him suffering a disability which has impacted the earning capacity of the petitioner, the petitioner sought for compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The quantum of compensation was justified by contending that the claimant was a floriculturist and was also a small time building contractor.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle viz., the bus remained ex parte and the insurance company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner as suggested by the claimant. It was pointed out that the claimant has suppressed his own negligence. The claimant was also put to strict proof of the income particulars and the disability.

4. At trial before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW-1

and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The Accident Register copy and Temporary Registration Certificate of the bus and the witness summons were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. No oral evidence was let in on the side of the Insurance

Company.

5. On the assessment of evidence placed before it, the Tribunal concluded that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver was the cause for the accident. In coming to the conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the First Information Report, which has been marked as Ex.P1. The claimant himself, being an eye witness to the accident, has explained as to how the accident took place. The absence of contra evidence on the part of the insurance company was also cited by the Tribunal in support of its conclusion. On the quantum, the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 60%. The Tribunal took the entire disability as assessed as functional disability and concluded that the claimant will be entitled to compensation based on multiplier method since the functional disability had resulted in loss of earning power. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/- and adopted the multiplier '17'. It arrived at the loss of earning capacity at Rs.12,24,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.30,000/- towards extra nutrition, Rs.40,000/- towards attender charges, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.9,62,082/- towards medical bills and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and loss of future prospects was arrived at Rs.4,89,600/-. Thus, the total compensation worked out to Rs.28,45,682/-.

6. Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company, would vehemently contend that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the report of the Medical Board as it is without looking into the fact that the claimant had only a fracture in the left femur and therefore, the assessment of functional disability at 60% is not correct. Learned counsel would also point out that the other injuries are not very serious.

7. Contending contra, Mr.Ram Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/claimant, would draw our atten