Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division I) Ltd. v. Anandakumar alias S. Anandakrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.11.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.1947 of 2000 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division I) Ltd.,represented by its Managing Director, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.Anandakumar alias S.Anandakrishnan,2.K.Selvaraj.(2nd respondent is the driver of the appellant Corporation. He is not necessary party in this proceedings,hence he is given up) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondentCivil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 8.12.1999passed in M.C.O.P.No.519 of 1994 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Coimbatore.For appellant : Ms.S.Geetha for M/s.Rajnish PathiyilFor respondents : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel for R1 : R2 given up-----JUDGMENTState Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the awarddated 8.12.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.No.519 of 1994 on the file of theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court),Coimbatore. 2. The only contention canvassed by the learned counsel for theappellant is on the quantum of compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of this case are asfollows:- The accident in this case happened on 16.3.1994. Accordingto the claim, the injured claimant Anandakumar aliasS.Anandakrishnan, aged about 32 years, a sales representative, wasproceeding in a two wheeler from East to West on Coimbatore-TrichyHigh Road. The lorry owned by the appellant transport corporationproceeding from West to East crossed the road and came on the wrongside to enter into the CTC Depot and while attempting to do so, hitthe two wheeler driven by the first respondent injured claimant. Inthat accident, the first respondent claimant suffered three grievousinjuries. He was treated for three months at Coimbatore GovernmentHospital. Thereafter, he was treated at Sheela Hospital,Coimbatore. The nature of injuries are as follows:-(i) fracture of right thigh bone,(ii) fracture of right leg knee and(iii)fracture of left knee cap.Consequent to the injuries, the injured claimant filed a claim forcompensation in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, stating that he was earning asum of Rs.3,000/- per month.4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examinedas P.W.1. One doctor Shanmugaraman was examined as P.W.2. Thefollowing documents were marked:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R., dated 16.3.1994Ex.A-2 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 5.9.1994,Ex.A-3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report,Ex.A-4 is the wound certificate dated 28.7.1995,Ex.A-5 is the proof that the lorry is the transport vehicle,Ex.A-6 is the copy of R.C. Book for the lorry,Ex.A-7 is the rough sketch,Ex.A-8 is the discharge summary,Ex.A-9 series are the medical bills,Ex.A-10 is the disability certificate andEx.A-11 is the X-Ray.One Selvaraj, the driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.1. A copyof criminal court judgment was marked as Ex.B-1 on behalf of theappellant transport corporation, second respondent before theTribunal.5. The rough sketch Ex.A-7 supported by other documents and theoral evidence clearly established the case of rash and negligentdriving on the part of the driver of the lorry belonging to theappellant transport corporation. Such finding in the absence ofmaterial to the contrary is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. As regards the compensation, the disability in this case wasassessed at 50% under Ex.A-10. The doctor P.W.2 has stated in hisevidence that consequent to the injury, the left leg knee cap has notproperly fixed. Because of mal union of the right knee there is ashortening of the leg. Injured claimant was in hospital from16.3.1994 to 24.6.1994 and from 7.11.1994 to 21.11.1994. In theabsence of any material to show the income of the deceased, based onthe age of the claimant whose age at the time of accident was 32years, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-per month and the annual income as Rs.18,000/- and by adopting 17multiplier for the 50% disability, fixed the pecuniary loss atRs.1,53,000/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts ascompensation with 12% interest:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of earning Rs.1,53,000/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-9 medical billsRs. 12,000/-3For three grievous injuriesRs. 15,000/-4Loss of income during the period oftreatment Rs. 18,000/-TotalRs.1,98,000/-7. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant isthat the Tribunal erred in adopting multiplier method in determiningthe quantum of compensation. There is no evidence to show that dueto the injury the earning capacity has been lost entirety. Theevidence of doctor says that the disability has affected his normallife.8. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant pleadedthat due to the injuries suffered the claimant is unable to do workas before to make his livelihood.9. A Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another (P.SATHASIVAM,J. as he then was)reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 set out the parameters, in which themultiplier method can be adopted in a case of injury. The relevantparagraph 11 reads thus:-"11. The following principles emerge from the abovediscussion:(a) In all cases of injury or permanentdisablement 'multiplier method' cannot bemechanically applied to ascertain the future lossof income or earning power. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) It depends upon various factors such asnature and extent of disablement, avocation of theinjured and whether it would affect his employmentor earning power, etc. and if so, to what extent?(c) (1) If there is categorical evidence thatbecause of injury and consequential disability,the injured lost his employment or avocationcompletely and has to be idle for the rest of hislife, in that event loss of income or earnings maybe ascertained by applying the 'multiplier method'as provided under the Second Schedule to MotorVehicles Act, 1988.(2) Even so there is no need to adopt thesame period as that of fatal cases as providedunder the Schedule. If there is no amputation andif there is evidence to show that there islikelihood of reduction or improvement in futureyears, lesser period may be adopted forascertainment of loss of income.(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation orprofession or nature of employment being attendedby the injured at the time of accident."10. In the present case, though the disability assessed at 50%,after the treatment given on 21.11.1994, there is no material to showthat the injured claimant has been totally incapacitated or hisability to work and his livelihood has been affected. However, theinjury in this case, viz., fracture of thigh and shortening of leg intwo centi-metres, will affect the earning capacity as salesrepresentative. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in adoptingthe multiplier method. But, at the same time, the multiplier in acase of this nature cannot be the same as in the case of death. Theclaimant will be entitled to suitable compensation based on lessermultiplier as he would have the benefit of making a livelihood byother means. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in adopting17 multiplier as in the case of death. However, the propermultiplier that can be taken in this case will be "10" and not "17".The income fixed by the Tribunal is not in dispute. Accordingly, if10 multiplier is adopted, the pecuniary loss based on 50% disabilitywill be Rs.90,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 10 x 50% = Rs.90,000/-)11. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant hasrightly pointed out that no amount has been granted for extranourishment, pain and suffering undergone, transport expenses and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attender charges. The claimant is entitled to the same and it isnot disputed. 12. The amount of Rs.15,000/- granted towards grievous injuriescannot be sustained when adequate compensation is granted for loss ofearning capacity due to the disability and for pain and suffering.Therefore, the said sum of Rs.15,000/- granted for grievous injuriesis set aside. 13. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified asfollows:-Sl.No.HeadAmount grantedby theTribunalAmount grantedby this Court1Pecuniary loss based ondisability assessed at 50%Rs.1,53,000/-Rs. 90,000/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-9medical billsRs.12,000/-Rs. 12,000/-3For three grievous injuriesRs.15,000/----4Loss of income during the periodof treatment Rs.18,000/-Rs. 18,000/-5Pain and suffering ---Rs. 40,000/-6Extra nourishment---Rs. 10,000/-7Attender charges---Rs.7,500/-8Transport charges---Rs. 10,000/-TotalRs.1,98,000/-Rs.1,87,500/-14. Since the accident happened in the year 1994 and the awardwas passed in the year 1999, the interest granted at 12% standsconfirmed. 15. It is stated that as per order dated 13.12.2000 inC.M.P.No.18702 of 2000, entire award amount has been deposited. 16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partlyallowed as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,87,500/- fromRs.1,98,000/-(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% standsconfirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) The first respondent/claimant is entitled to withdraw theaward amount as determined by this Court. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the excess amount indeposit after settling the claimant. (v) There will be no order as to costs. (vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, isclosed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsTo1.II Additional Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore.2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel Advocate SR NO.63111 Judgment inC.M.A.No.1947 of 2000RSI {CO}TP/30.12.08