Judgment :- 1. The appellant has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for enhanced compensation as against the award and decree dated 14.2.2006 made in MCOP.No.4071 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (5th Small Causes Court) Chennai. 2. The appellant/claimant has filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for injuries sustained by him by contending that on 1.5.2002 at about 22.30 hours while he was riding his scooter bearing Registration No.22 O 9716 with pillion rider from Virugambakkam towards Alapakkam at Arcot Road, first respondent Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.TN-10 C 5944 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit against the scooter of the petitioner and the petitioner and pillion rider fell down from the scooter and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the abovesaid van and the petitioner has taken treatment at Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Porur, Chennai as in-patient and the petitioner was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was doing business and due to the accident, the petitioner was unable to work and therefore the first respondent who is the owner of the van and second respondent-insurance company as insurer of the above-said vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. 3. The first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and the insurance company-second respondent has contended that the petitioner should prove that the first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent and also the age, occupation, income, nature of injuries etc and also contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant and excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, the claimant himself deposed as P.W.1 and examined one Devapriyan as PW.2 and Doctor Thiru. Amarnath as PW.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3, copies of discharge summary, Ex.P4 Prescription, Ex.P5, Medical bills, Ex.P6, O.P chits by Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Ex.P7-photograph and Ex.P8-copy of driving licence, Ex.P9-copy of FIR, Ex.P10-copy of rough sketch, Ex.P11-disability certificate and Ex.P12-X-ray. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. Amarnath as PW.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3, copies of discharge summary, Ex.P4 Prescription, Ex.P5, Medical bills, Ex.P6, O.P chits by Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Ex.P7-photograph and Ex.P8-copy of driving licence, Ex.P9-copy of FIR, Ex.P10-copy of rough sketch, Ex.P11-disability certificate and Ex.P12-X-ray. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. On considering the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver and the second respondent-insurance company is liable to pay compensation as insurer of first respondent vehicle and passed award on various heads as follows:- Loss of income for six months - Rs. 18,000.00 Transport expenses - Rs. 2,000.00 Extra-nourishment - Rs. 2,000.00 Medical expenses – Rs. 1,50,000.00 Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000.00 Permanent disability -Rs. 45,000.00 Loss of earning power -Rs. 15,000.00 Rs.2,42,000.00 6. Aggrieved with the abovesaid award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner who is injured in the abovesaid accident alone has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation, but the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross appeal against the finding of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that the petitioner had taken treatment as in-patient from 1.5.2002 to 20.6.2002 and again was re-admitted on 22.8.2002 and discharged on 24.8.2002 and further underwent surgery for bone crafting and took treatment as inpatient from 9.10.2002 to 22.10.2002. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per the doctor's certificate, the petitioner sustained 45% of permanent disability and the petitioner has spent Rs.1,50,000/-towards medical expenses and the petitioner was 38 years old and therefore the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation by applying multiplier method and the Tribunal has failed to note the pain and suffering, disability, incapacity, loss of enjoyment of life etc and therefore filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent has contended that the Tribunal has correctly passed the award on various heads considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant and therefore no need to interfere with the abovesaid award passed by the Tribunal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 10. The learned counsel for the second respondent has contended that the Tribunal has correctly passed the award on various heads considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant and therefore no need to interfere with the abovesaid award passed by the Tribunal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 10. On the side of the claimant, to prove the negligence, the injured claimant has deposed as PW.1 and also marked Ex.P9, copy of FIR, Ex.P10-copy of rough sketch and stated in his evidence that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle as stated in the claim petition. Further, on the side of the claimant, has examined one Devapriyan as PW.2 and he has deposed that on the complaint given by the petitioner, he has registered criminal case and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the driver of the first respondent vehicle has admitted the offence and paid Rs.2200/- as fine. Further, on the side of the claimant, has marked Ex.P9-copy of FIR and Ex.P10-rough sketch and on perusal of the abovesaid oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.P9 and P10 reveal that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle and criminal case was also registered and he voluntarily admitted the offence and fine amount was paid. On the side of the respondents, there is no contra evidence and therefore the Tribunal has correctly held that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle and hence the second respondent as insurer of the abovesaid vehicle is liable to pay compensation. 11. With regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.3000/- and awarded six months salary of Rs.18,000/- for loss of earning during treatment and Rs.2000 for transportation and Rs.2000/- for extra-nourishment. Further the petitioner has produced Ex.P5-medical bills for Rs.1,74,000/-but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,50,000/-since the petitioner has claimed only Rs.1,50,000/- on the abovesaid head in the petition. Further the petitioner has produced Ex.P5-medical bills for Rs.1,74,000/-but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,50,000/-since the petitioner has claimed only Rs.1,50,000/- on the abovesaid head in the petition. Further, the Tribunal has passed Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.45,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.15,000/-for loss of income, totally Rs.2,42,000/-was awarded to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the petitioner has sustained fracture on the left knee and the bone was broken into three pieces and he has taken treatment from 1.5.2002 to 20.6.2002 as in-patient and then again due to infection from 22.8.2002 to 24.8.2002 as in-patient and again from 9.10.2002 to 22.10.2002 as in-patient and he was also given treatment by way of bone crafting and inspite of it, he sustained disability. Further the appellant has examined one Dr.Amarnath as PW.3 and he has deposed that due to injuries, the claimant has sustained 45% disability and to prove the same, he has filed Ex.P11-disability certificate and Ex.P12-X-ray. 13. On perusal of the abovesaid oral and documentary evidence reveals that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and due to the injuries, he suffered 45% disability and also reveals that the petitioner/appellant was running juice shop and earned Rs.5000/- per month. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to the disability the petitioner was unable to do the above business as done before accident but the Tribunal has not considered the abovesaid nature of injuries, disability and due to the disability he is unable to run the business as before and therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is to be enhanced. 14. With regard to the loss of income during the treatment period, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/-. Considering the age, income and business of the appellant, I am of the view that the abovesaid amount awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and no need to enhance the abovesaid amount. 15. With regard to transportation and extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- each. Considering the injuries and treatment taken, I am of the view that the abovesaid amount need not be enhanced, but the same may be awarded. 15. With regard to transportation and extra-nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- each. Considering the injuries and treatment taken, I am of the view that the abovesaid amount need not be enhanced, but the same may be awarded. With regard to medical expenses, the appellant/claimant himself claimed only Rs.1,50,000/-in the claim petition and therefore the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in the petition and therefore no need to enhance the abovesaid amount. Tribunal has not passed any award for damage to cloth and hence Rs.1000/-is to be awarded for the abovesaid head. 16. With regard to pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Considering the injuries, treatment taken and disability, I am of the view that the abovesaid amount is very low. The petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for three times and also taking treatment as out-patient. Inspite of that, he suffered 45% disability. Therefore for pain and suffering the abovesaid amount is to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. 17. With regard to permanent disability, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/-. As already discussed, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment for long period. Inspite of it, the petitioner has sustained 45% disability and therefore the abovesaid award of Rs.45,000/-is just and proper and no need to enhance the abovesaid amount. 18. With regard to loss of earning power, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15000/-. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for loss of earning power. As already discussed, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he was taking treatment for several months and inspite of it, he sustained 45% disability. Admittedly, the petitioner was doing business and therefore the compensation for loss of earning power awarded by the Tribunal is considered as very low and hence it has to be enhanced as Rs.45,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/-. 19. Therefore, as already discussed in detail, the appeal filed by the appellant is to be partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is to be modified and enhanced as under:- "Loss of income : Rs. 18,000.00 Transport expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 Extra-nourishment : Rs. 2,000.00 Damage to clothes : Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses : Rs.1,50,000.00 Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 Permanent disability : Rs. 45,000.00 Loss of earning power : Rs. 45,000.00 Rs,2,83,000.00 20. 18,000.00 Transport expenses : Rs. 2,000.00 Extra-nourishment : Rs. 2,000.00 Damage to clothes : Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses : Rs.1,50,000.00 Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 Permanent disability : Rs. 45,000.00 Loss of earning power : Rs. 45,000.00 Rs,2,83,000.00 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.2,42,000/- to Rs.2,83,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum. 21. Both sides admitted that the award passed by the Tribunal has been deposited and the appellant/petitioner has also withdrawn the same. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.41,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment is to be deposited by the second respondent-insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the abovesaid amount. No costs.