JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the Award, dated 30.08.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruchirappalli.

2. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2021 is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the petitioner/claimant who filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2021.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.210 of 2021 are adopted hereunder.

4. The brief facts of the case:

On 13.08.2020 at 18.30 hours, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 48 AJ 3881 from south to north on the Trichy to Chennai NH Road near Samayapuram Toll Plaza opposite to Thambu Tea shop. The first respondent’s lorry bearing registration number TN 45 MB 7746 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction and dashed behind the petitioner's two wheeler. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over the body, including a degloving injury to the left upper limb with skin loss and a lateral condyle chip fracture, left elbow fracture dislocation, 3rd finger phalanges left hand/fracture 4th finger, and a crush injury to the left upper limb. After taking first aid at Government Hospital, Trichy, she was admitted in G.V.N.Hospital, Trichy and took treatment as an inpatient from 15.08.2020 to 21.09.2020 and surgery was done on 17.08.2020. Then, she was taking treatment privately. The petitioner sustained permanent disability and incurred huge medical expenses. FIR in Crime No.823 of 2020 U/s.279 and 337 of IPC, was registered against the first respondent's driver. The petitioner was a cooking contractor and earned Rs.1,000/- per day. She is not able to do business as she did earlier. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-.

5. The first respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company objected the claim petition by contending that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two wheeler. The first respondent's lorry driver was not responsible for the accident. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the two wheeler. She sustained only simple injuries and the same have been cured. She has no loss of earnings.

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked six documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The respondent has not examined any witness and has not marked any documents. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent's lorry. The Tribunal has considered the medical treatment taken by the petitioner and arrived at a total award of Rs.8,78,940/- by its order, dated 30.08.2022.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There is no strong objection raised by the appellant regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent's lorry for the accident.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has argued that the petitioner is a 48 years old person. Though the petitioner stated that she was earning as a cooking contractor, there is no proof of income and the petitioner has not produced any salary certificate or any other document to show her vocation. So, there is no proof of loss of income. The petitioner, as P.W.1, has admitted in cross examination that she has not filed any document to show her vocation. The Tribunal arrived at 33% disability and awarded compensation adopting the multiplier method. The petitioner has not sustained any functional disability. While adopting the multiplier method, the Tribunal has to ascertain three steps viz