(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.105 of 2019, dated 20.01.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri.)

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

1) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020passed in M.C.O.P. No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, seeking to set aside the same.

2) The case of the appellant is that on 25.04.2008, he was travelling from Vellore to Chennai on his Splendor motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-23- AB-7417. While so, a TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-21- AB-6546, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at an uncontrollable speed, approached from the opposite direction without observing traffic rules and dashed against the appellant’s motorcycle near Baluchetty Chatram, G.W.B. Road, Chindhadhiri Medu Junction Road, resulting in the accident. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained major fractures in both legs and multiple grievous injuries all over his body, resulting in permanent disability. Consequently, the appellant filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.105 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, claiming a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal, by judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020, awarded a sum of Rs.30,28,400/-, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant as the compensation is inadequate.

3) Heard Mr. V. Kumaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. J. Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- was itself modest considering the nature of injuries sustained. However, the Tribunal arbitrarily disallowed compensation under several legitimate heads, namely, loss of income during treatment period, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, attendant charges, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, damage to clothing and articles and loss of care and guidance to family, which is contrary to settled principles of law.

5) It was further contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.13,000/-, despite the deposition of P.W.2, the authorized representative of the employer, and Ex.P28 – Salary Certificate, which establish the appellant’s monthly income as Rs.18,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal also failed to consider the fact that the appellant had undergone 18 surgeries and was hospitalized for 510 days as an inpatient across 24 admissions, clearly demonstrating the gravity of injuries and the necessity for prolonged treatment and future medical expenses.

6) The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and employed in a private company, and therefore the Tribunal erred in denying future prospects, contrary to settled law. According to him, the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and warrants interference.

7) Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. He pointed out that the appellant himself had mentioned his monthly income as Rs.13,000/- in the claim petition and had neither amended the claim petition nor rectified the alleged error during the course of trial. Hence, the appellant cannot now contend that his income was Rs.18,000/-. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8) We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

9) The primary contention of the appellant relates to the fixation of monthly income. It is seen that in the claim petition, the appellant stated that he was employed at Kalyani Steel Plant Products India Private Limited, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, and mentioned his income as Rs.13,000/- per month. However, Ex.P28 – Salary Certificate and the deposition of P.W.2 indicate employment with Praxair India Pvt. Ltd., Tornakallu Village, Bellary District, from the year 2006 till the date of accident.

10) Neither the oral evidence nor the documentary evidence establishes that Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of or connected in any manner with Kalyani Steel Plant Products India Private Limited, nor is there any evidence of merger or name change. In the absence of clarification regarding the identity of the employer, this Court finds that the claim of monthly income of Rs.18,000/- is not satisfactorily substantiated. Therefore, the fixation of income at Rs.13,000/- by the Tribunal does not warrant interference.

11) The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,28,400/- under the following heads: