JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 17.01.2019. 3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 8.40 a.m, when he was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23- BM-4222 from Chennai to Pondicherry slowly and cautiously observing all the traffic rules of the road, with sounding horn, keeping to the extreme left side of the road, near ECR, opposite to Vadanemili Darga, a Toyota Car bearing Registration No.TN-11-AD-1800 owned by the 2nd respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing any traffic rules with high speed and while overtaking the Motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent, suddenly applied brake. Due to the said impact, the Motorcycle dashed on the Car and thus, the accident has occurred. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car and hence, the 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company as owner and insurer of the Car respectively. 4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the Car, remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant, insurer of the Car, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was riding his Motorcycle on his left side and the said Car was coming behind him. 5. The appellant, insurer of the Car, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was riding his Motorcycle on his left side and the said Car was coming behind him. When the Car overtook the Motorcycle and turned to its right side after slowing down with signaling both electronic and hand signal, the 1st respondent who was coming on his Motorcycle in high speed lost the control of the vehicle and hit the Car on sides and fell down, sustaining injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent/rider of the Motorcycle. It is evident from the contents in the FIR that the 1st respondent was negligent in causing the accident. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle. The 1st respondent has to prove the injuries sustained, disability suffered, loss of income suffered and his avocation and income to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. 7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car, owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.24,62,825/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 8. Against the said award of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred when the 1st respondent/Motorcyclist hit behind the on going Car without maintaining sufficient distance. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the 1st respondent/Motorcyclist, in violation of Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, rode the Motorcycle without maintaining sufficient distance and hit behind the moving Car and caused the accident. Had the 1st respondent maintained safe distance, the accident would have been avoided. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the 1st respondent/Motorcyclist, in violation of Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, rode the Motorcycle without maintaining sufficient distance and hit behind the moving Car and caused the accident. Had the 1st respondent maintained safe distance, the accident would have been avoided. Hence, for the own negligence of the 1st respondent, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent/owner of the Car. In any event, the 1st respondent has not taken any subsequent or continuous treatment after the accident. The 1st respondent failed to appear before the Medical Board and failed to examine the Doctor who treated him to prove the injuries and disability suffered by him in the accident. The disability assessed is only a physical disability. The Tribunal erred in equating the same with the earning capacity. The 1st respondent failed to prove by letting in any material evidence to show that the injury sustained in the accident affected his educational career. The 1st respondent has not proved that he suffered functional disability and lost his earning capacity. In the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier method to award compensation towards loss of earning power, instead of applying percentage method. The total compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent made submissions in support of the award of the Tribunal with regard to negligence fixed on the driver of the Car owned by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that the Tribunal considering the 65% disability suffered by the 1st respondent, educational qualification at the time of accident and loss of earning power suffered due to the injuries sustained in the accident, has rightly awarded compensation under different heads. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. 11. Though notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation for them either in person or through counsel. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 13. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the case of the 1st respondent that on the date of accident, he was riding in a Motorcycle from Chennai to Pondicherry on the extreme left side of the East Coast road, opposite to Vadanemili Dharga. The driver of the Car owned by the 2nd respondent who was coming behind the Motorcycle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the Motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent, came in front of the Motorcycle and applied sudden brake. The 1st respondent, without anticipating the said negligent act of the driver of the Car, dashed on the Car and thus, the accident occurred. To substantiate his case, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1. Deposition of P.W.1 corroborated with the contents of FIR. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of Motorcycle by the 1st respondent who dashed on the back side of the Car when it was turning on the right side after giving proper signal. The 1st respondent failed to maintain safe distance with the vehicle going ahead. To substantiate their case, they have not examined the driver of the Car or any other independent witness. In the absence of any contra evidence to the evidence of 1st respondent as P.W.1, the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car owned by the 2nd respondent. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 14. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is case of the 1st respondent that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was aged 23 years and was studying M.B.A. In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and fracture in acetabulum with proximal migration of femoral head and his back bone is completely damaged. The District Medical Board, Vellore examined the 1st respondent and certified that the 1st respondent suffered 65% disability. The District Medical Board, Vellore examined the 1st respondent and certified that the 1st respondent suffered 65% disability. P.W.1 has deposed that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he could not continue his studies and marked the certificate of attendance as Ex.P11, to substantiate the same. The Tribunal, on perusal of the disability certificate marked as Ex.P20 which reveals that the 1st respondent sustained 65% disability and evidence of P.W.1, held that the 1st respondent suffered functional disability and rightly applied multiplier method to award compensation towards loss of functional disability. But for the accident, considering the age and educational qualification of the 1st respondent, he would have obtained good job with decent salary. The accident is of the year 2019. The Tribunal considering the age, date of accident and educational qualification of the 1st respondent, fixed a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income, which is not excessive. The 1st respondent was aged 23 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 [Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others] and 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 SC Supreme Court [Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another], granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and applied the multiplier 18', in awarding compensation towards loss of functional disability for 65% disability. The Tribunal considering Ex.P2 – discharge summary and medical bills marked as Exs.P14 to P16, held that the medical bills are found to be genuine and awarded a sum of Rs.5,73,785/- towards medical expenses. The 1st respondent has suffered hip replacement and foot reconstruction surgeries, which requires future treatment. The 1st respondent has marked Ex.P15 which relates to the estimate of Rs.6,10,000/- for the future medical expenses. The Tribunal on perusal of Ex.P15 found that the said estimate is only approximate and not certain and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 15. The Tribunal on perusal of Ex.P15 found that the said estimate is only approximate and not certain and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment taken by the 1st respondent, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are not excessive, warranting interference by this Court. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.24,62,825/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards future medical expenses are confirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.24,62,825/- being the award amount together with interest and costs and Rs.1,00,000/-, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.