Insurance company liability affirmed; compensation revised based on injury assessment and future loss.

JUDGMENT

( OF THE. COURT WAS MADE BY M.GOVINDARAJ, J.)

Challenging the award of compensation of Rs.1,52,26,617/- passed in M.C.O.P.No.2401 of 2011 dated 20.02.2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore, the appellant insurance company has come up with the the present appeal.

2. On 06.05.2011 at about 09.00 p.m., when the claimant / first respondent was riding his motorcyle, bearing Registration No.PY01-AC-7362, on the left hand side of Cuddalore Pondy Main Road, near Periyakattukuppam, the second respondent's Car, bearing Registration No.TN41-K-4444, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner's vehicle from behind and caused the accident. He was admitted at Aarupadai Veedu Hospital, Pondicherry and then transferred to JIPMER hospital, Pondicherry for advanced treatment. Till now, the claimant was undergoing treatment at private hospitals. In the accident, the motorcycle was completely damaged.

3. At the time of accident, the claimant was 49 years old. He was serving as a Professor. of Medicine at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College Hospital, Kirumampakkam and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month also earning by his private practice. He was an income, tax-assessee and sole bread winner of the family. Due to the ,accident, he was totally disabled and lost all promotional ,chances and bright career prospects. Therefore, he has estimated. the. compensation at Rs.2 “Crores, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, six witnesses were examined and 27 documents were marked as Exs.Pl to P27. Onwethe side of the respondents, the driver alone was examined as witness and no documents wére marked. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the Doctors, who have given disability certificate to the claimant.

5. The Tribunal has gone into all the issues regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, liability of the insurance company and the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal below on the basis of Ex.Pl - xerox copy of FIR and also on the basis of evidence of Driver has come to the conclusion that theaccident™had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the. driver of the second respondent's Car.

6. In so far as the objection taken by the insurance company that the Driver was not having proper driving license and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation were disputed, by marking Ex.P2 - driving license of the claimant, Ex.P4 - xerox copy of insurance policy, Ex.P3 - report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector for second respondent's vehicle, the claimant had discharged his liability. The second respondent's vehicle had valid insurance policy and the driver also had valid driving license was held to be proved. Therefore, the insurance company was rightly declared to be liable to pay compensation.

7. In so far as the injuries sustained by the claimant is concerned, there were lot of medical evidences produced by way of Ex.P5 - medico legal examination report, Exs.P6 and P7 - case summary and discharge record, discharge summary, Ex.P8 - O.P. records of JIPMER Hospital, Exs.P13 to P19 - disability certificate, opinion given by Doctors and Hospital were marked.

8. As per the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, disability was shown as 100 %, as the claimant cannot perform any surgery thereafter and has to put under medical supervision throughout his life. In so far as the loss of earning capacity is concerned, the claimant has..marked..Ex.P20 - salary slip of the claimant, Ex.P21 - rel