(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2014 made in MCOP.No.4857/2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chennai, V Small Causes Court, Chennai dealing with M.C.O.P. Cases.)1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.4857 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / V Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The claimant is the appellant, filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. The facts in nutshell to be considered are that on 15.05.2008 at about 22.00 hours, the claimant was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-10-S-7313 at Madhavaram High Road, opposite to Madhavaram New Bus Stop from South to North direction and at that point of time, a Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-Z-2052 came from North to South direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's Motor Cycle, resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. One Mr.S.Sankar is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance company.3. The Claim Petition was filed, seeking compensation. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective parties. The Tribunal considered the First Information Report as well as the copy of the rough sketch / Ex.P2, which shows that the negligence was on the part of the Tanker lorry. Based on the rough sketch as well as the FIR, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the driver of the Tanker lorry was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in an accident. Thus, the driver of the Tanker lorry is held responsible and accordingly, the negligence is on the part of the 1st respondent / driver and consequently, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appellant / claimant.4. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is less and not in commensuration with the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded towards compensation. The case on hand is a fit case for application of Multiplier. However, the Tribunal has not adopted Multiplier and granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for six months and Rs.1,20,000/- towards disability compensation. Rs.2,000/- is taken per percentage to calculate the disability compensation. Therefore, the claimant has chosen to prefer an appeal and accordingly, the Multiplier is to be applied.5. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the appellant/ claimant has suffered permanent disability and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in granting a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards disability compensation. The nature of the injuries, the Discharge summary and the permanent disability established by the claimant before the Tribunal has not been properly considered and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed and the amount of compensation is to be enhanced.6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company disputed the grounds by stating that there is no proof to establish that the appellant suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal has assessed the disability as partial permanent disability and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage and a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was granted towards disability compensation. The accident occurred on 15.05.2008 and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in granting the disability compensation. This apart, the Doctor witness is a bogus witness and the Doctor, who treated the claimant, was not examined. The Tribunal has accepted the disability granted by the Government Doctor as 60% partial permanent disability. The nature of the injuries were considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is to be dismissed.7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Doctor has assessed the disability as 60% permanent disability. The claimant pleaded the disability caused loss of income in future. However, the Tribunal made a finding that Ex.P4 and Ex.P7 did not reveal about any injury in left hip. This apart, the facts revealed that the appellant/claimant was working as a Supervisor and he has not submitted any evidence to establish that his earning capacity has been reduced or he suffered any loss of income in future. P.W.2 Doctor has also not spoken about the permanent disability. Thus, the appellant/claimant had not established before the Tribunal that the permanent disability affected his future career, resulted in loss of income. In the absence of any such clinching evidence to establish that there is a loss of income, the Tribunal is right in granting compensation by assessing the disability as 60% partial disability.8. As far as the permanent disability and loss of future income are concerned, the same is to be established through evidences and documents. In the absence of any evidence, inferences cannot be drawn with reference to the future loss of income. The nature of the injuries established before the Tribunal as well as the evidences available on record are to be considered for the purpose of granting just compensation. As far as the seriousness of the injury suffered by the claimant and the loss of future income with reference to the avocation are all important factors to be considered at the time of assessing the compensation.9. In the presen
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t case, though the claimant pleaded that the disability is permanent in nature, there is no proof to establish the same. Further, he was working as a Supervisor and the said fact was not repudiated nor denied during the examination of witnesses.10. This being the factum, the Tribunal has not committed any error apparent and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2014 passed in M.C.O.P.No.4857 of 2008 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.356 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.