K. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. LOUIS WALTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award dated 30.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.4089 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4089 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The appellant filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 08.06.2008. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to the 1st respondent and directed the 2nd respondent-insurer of the said motor cycle to pay a sum of Rs.3,45,100/- as compensation to the appellant-claimant at first instance and recover from the first respondent. Not being satisfied with the award amount granted by the Tribunal, the appellant has come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant was working as electrician under the contractor viz., Mohan Electrical Works in Dharmaprakash Kalyanamandapam and he was earning Rs.350/- per day by doing electrical work. The Tribunal without considering Ex.P17-salary certificate, erroneously fixed a meagre sum of Rs.6,000/-per month as notional income of the appellant. The appellant has examined three Doctors as PW2 to PW4 and they have certified that the appellant suffered disability at 35%, 45% and 40% respectively, totally 120%. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of earning capacity at 100% as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and ought to have awarded more amounts. The appellant has produced medical bills/Exs.P14, P15 and P16 and the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the medical bills/ Exs.P14 and Ex.P15 and awarded only Rs.13,221/- towards medical expenses. The reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting Exs.P14 and P15 are not valid. Even though the appellant has claimed lesser amount as compensation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation and prayed for enhancement of compensation.