- (1.)THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation by the appellant/claimant as against the award and decree made in MCOP No.364 of 2003, dated 12.07.2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi.
(2.)THE appellant/claimant filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. In the claim petition it is stated that on 30.03.2003 at about 15.45 hrs, the appellant/claimant was walking from South to North by keeping extreme end of the left side of the road and when she was coming in front of Kadayanallur Telephone Exchange in Tenkasi to Madurai Main Road, the first respondent's Hyundai car bearing registration No.72 W 3300 was driven by its driver with great terrific speed and not observing the traffic rules from South to North and directly hit the claimant and the claimant has sustained grievous injuries on the left thigh and also sustained simple injuries on various parts. Further, it is stated that she was taken to Government Hospital, Kadayanallur, where she has taken first aid treatment and then she was referred to TVMC Hospital and taking treatment as inpatient from 13.03.2003 to 17.05.2003 and after discharge she was taking treatment as out patient in Private clinic till the date of petition. It is also averred in the claim petition that the age of the injured claimant is 45 years at the time of the accident and she was doing beedi rolling work and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and therefore, claimed compensation at Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the above said vehicle.
Before the Tribunal, the first respondent, who is the owner of the above said vehicle, has filed counter, wherein it is stated that the appellant/claimant should prove that the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's vehicle driver and further stated that the first respondent vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent insurance company under the policy No.091000-31-3-05261. Therefore, the second respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

(3.)THE second respondent insurance company has filed a separate counter in which they denied the manner of the accident alleged in the claim petition and it is stated that the appellant/claimant should prove the above said fact. They further denied the age, avocation and income of the appellant/claimant, injury, disability etc., and the injury sustained by the appellant/claimant is simple in nature and she does not suffer disability and therefore, the compensation claimed is higher and excessive.