In motor accident injury claims, medically assessed permanent disability by competent doctor must be accepted absent rebuttal; Tribunal cannot arbitrarily reduce without reasoning. Notional income and compensation enhanced considering age, evidence, and future medical expenses. (38 words)

JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred against the Common Award, dated 19.10.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1089 and 1064 of 2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

2.The petitioner/claimant in respective petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1064 of 2005 and 1089 of 2005 are the appellants herein.

3.The petitioners/claimants filed the claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1064 of 2005 and 1089 of 2005 praying for compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.Nos.1064 of 2005 and 1089 of 2005 is adopted hereunder.

5.The brief facts of the case:

On 09.03.2005 at 07.00 a.m., the claimants Manjuladevi and Sadhyabama @ Sathyapriya were traveling in the first respondent's Swaraj Mazda Van bearing registration No.TN 63 D 4807, which was driven by its driver at moderate speed along the Ilayankudi to Sivagangai main road. When the van was coming near Oothukulam bus stop, the third respondent’s lorry bearing registration No.TN 63 B 1477 coming from the opposite direction, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the first respondent's Swaraj Van. Due to impact, the claimants sustained fractures and grievous injuries. Consequently, FIR in Crime No.51 of 2005 was registered against the third respondent's driver by the Sivagangai Taluk Police Station. The claimants were drama actresses and were earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and Rs.7,000/- p.m. Due to accidental injuries sustained, they were unable to earn. So, they filed MCOP.Nos.1064 of 2005 and 1089 of 2005 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively.

6.The respondents 1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

7.The 2^nd respondent/National Insurance Company objected to the claim petition and contended that the accident was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the third respondent's lorry. Moreover, the first respondent's van driver did not possess a valid driving license. So, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

8.The 4^th respondent/United Insurance Company objected by contending that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent's van driver. In that van, four persons were travelling, in which the petitioner was travelling as gratuitous passenger along with them. The third respondent's lorry driver was driving the lorry at normal speed by observing traffic rules. So, the 4^th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

9.Before the Tribunal, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in MCOP.Nos.1089 of 2005 and 1064 of 2005.

9.1. In MCOP.No.1089 of 2005, on the petitioner's side, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. In addition, Ex.X.1 was also marked.

9.2. In MCOP.No.1064 of 2005, on the petitioner's side, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. On the side of respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. In addition, Ex.X.1 was also marked.

9.3. After hearing both and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the third respondent's lorry and thereby, the 4^th respondent/Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.44,000/- to the claimant in MCOP.No.1089 of 2005 and compen