The appellate court may revise compensation awarded by the lower tribunal if found inadequate or excessive based on established legal principles and evidence of permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed challenging the judgement and Award dated 2017 dated 05.06.2020, in MCOP No.312 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Jayankondan.

2. The facts leading to the present lis is that, on 02.09.2016 at about 7:15 p.m., the claimant, had met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of a Two Wheeler which, came from behind and dashed him, causing grievous injuries, including a skull fracture and blood clot his brain vessels. He was immediately rushed to the hospital, where he underwent brain surgery and continued the treatment as an inpatient from 03.09.2016 to 30.09.2016.

3. The injuries sustained by the claimant have resulted in permanent disability, assessed at about 25%, which has substantially impaired his earning capacity and rendered him incapable of continuing his occupation. Therefore a claims petition came to be filed, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/-. The rider of the offending motorcycle was impleaded as the 1st respondent, and the insurance Company which had insured the offending vehicle was impleaded as the 2nd respondent. Upon the demise of the 1st respondent, his wife, being his legal heir was brought on record as the 3rd respondent.

4. The Claims Tribunal, after analysing, the case had by award and judgement dated 05.06.2020, held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.12,64,197/- as compensation, payable jointly and severally by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal further directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.7,64,197/- within a period of two months from the date of the judgment, i.e., 05.06.2020, upon which the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same. The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank. Aggrieved by the said award and judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal, the claimant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA No. 1817 of 2020, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Insurance Company, with which the offending vehicle was insured, had preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA No. 1596 of 2023, seeking to set aside the award and judgment dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Claims Tribunal.

4. Heard both the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties in both the appeals.

CMA No. 1817 of 2020:

5. The claimant in the claim petition has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing compensation disproportionately low when compared to the amount claimed in the Claims Petition. He would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability, without considering the principles laid down by this Court, wherein it has been held that the compensation ought to granted depending upon the age, occupation, and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Chinnathambi Vs. S. Deepa and others,  2020 (1) TN MAC 617, in support of his contention.

7. It was further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier method, especially when the appellant had suffered permanent disability assessed to be at 25%, which has affected his earning capacity. The learned counsel would also submit that the Tribu