The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Coimbatore Division-I)Limited,No.37, Mettupalayam Road,Coimbatore v. Bagyalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.12.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.No. 1395 of 2003andC.M.P.No.9339 of 2003.......The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Coimbatore Division-I)Limited, No.37, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant/respondentVs. Bagyalakshmi ... Respondent/petitionerAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 08.11.2001 in MCOP No.1566 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge)Tiruppur. For Appellant : Mr. P.Jagadeeswaran For Respondent : M/s.Kayalvizhi for Mr.C.PrakasamJUDGMENTThe TamilNadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Division-I)Limited has filed this appeal challenging the award and decree08.11.2001 in MCOP No.1566 of 1999 on the file of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Tiruppur.

It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on18.03.1999. The injured claimant Bagyalakshmi, 38 years old, working as Spinner in Rajeswary Textiles, Coimbatore, was riding her TVS. Moped. The appellant Transport Corporation bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against her and she was thrown away. She sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Singanallur E.S.I. Hospital and thereafter she underwent treatment in NSP Nursing Home, Coimbatore. Forthe injuries suffered, the claimant filed a petition, claiming a sum ofRs.5,00,000/- as compensation, stating that her income was Rs.4,500/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per month.

In support of the claim petition, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Md.Subair was examined as P.W.2. DocumentsExs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. Ex.P1 is xerox copy of First InformationReport, Ex.P2 is photocopy of surgical card, Ex.P3 is salary certificate, Ex.P4 is the certificate with regard to loss of income, Ex.P5 is Medical Bills(series), Ex.P6 is disability certificate assessing the disability at 45% and Ex.P7 is X-ray. No documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/respondent-TransportCorporation, before the Tribunal. One Thiru. Raghunathan was examined as R.W.1.

The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who caused the accident and the injury and the liability of the TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Limited to compensate the claimant, are not in dispute and the same are confirmed.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.

As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has decided the issue in paragraph 7 of the award is answer to point No.2.The injured claimant suffered crush injuries on her right leg and right hand. There were abrasions. She took treatment in the hospital as above for six months. However, in the award of the Tribunal, the details of the injuries suffered, the period of treatment and the nature of disability, have not been discussed. By cryptic order which is found in paragraph 7, the Tribunal, by following the multiplier method and by fixing the income of the injured claimant at Rs.4,000/-per month,(i.e. Rs.48,000/- per annum) awarded compensation towards pecuniary loss – based on disability-assessed at 45% as follows:-Rs.48,000/- x 16 =Rs.7,68,000/- x 45% = Rs.3,45,600/-. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at9% per annum. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount granted by the Tribunal1Permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. Rs. 3,45,600/-2Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 60,000/-3Medical BillsRs. 50,000/-TotalRs. 4,55,600/-wrongly calculated toRs.4,60,600/- but restricted toRs.4,00,000/-7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporationpleaded that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the multiplier method in this case, as there is no material to show that after the injury and after treatment, the earning capacity of the claimant is totally affected.

In this case, the claimant herself claimed the loss of income only for six months, from which it is clear that she has re-joined the employment after six months and the question of adopting the multiplier does not arise as there is no permanent disability. Tested on the parameter of the Division Bench decision in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483, the compensation by following multiplier method is not justified in the facts of the present case. Para 11 of the Division Bench decision reads as follows:- "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all cases of injury or permanent disablement 'multiplier method' cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. (b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power, etc. and if so, to what extent?(c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle for the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earnings may https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be 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 the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if thereis evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident. "Hence, in this case the award in a sum of Rs.3,45,600/- by following multiplier method is not justified and it is set aside. The claimant, however, will be entitled to compensation for disability assessed at45%. She will also be entitled compensation on various conventional heads which are omitted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has granted higher compensation of Rs.60,000/-for loss of income for the period of six months, stating that she wasout of employment for six months, even though the claimant herself claimed Rs.27,000/- only for the period of six months, calculating the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, high compensation is not justified. The Medical bills are not in dispute. The claimant is entitled to transportation and nutritious food and attender charges. Considering all these aspects, the award stands modified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.HeadAmount granted by the TribunalAmount granted by this Court1Permanent disabilityRs. 3,45,600/-Rs. 60,000/-2Loss of income during the period of treatment for six monthsRs. 60,000/-Rs. 27,000/-3Medical BillsRs. 50,000/-Rs. 51,500/-4Pain and sufferings ----Rs. 20,000/-5Transportation ----Rs. 10,000/-6Extra-nourishment Rs. ----Rs. 10,000/-7Attender Charges ----Rs. 7,500/-TotalRs. 4,55,600/-wrongly calculated to Rs.4,60,600/-but restricted toRs. 4,00,000/-Rs. 1,86,000/-10. Since the accident happened in the year 1999 and the award was passed in the year 2001, the interest granted by the tribunal at 9%stands confirmed. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,86,000/- from Rs.4,00,000/- (ii) The interest at 9% is confirmed. (iii) It is stated that as per order of this Court dated 08.08.2003 passed in C.M.P.No.9339 of 2003 entire award amount has been deposited and the claimant was permitted to withdraw 40% of the award amount. (iv) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount as ordered by this Court. (v) The appellant is entitled to withdraw the balance amount in deposit after settling the claimant. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (vii) Consequently, M.P.No.9339 of 2003 is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rrgTo1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) Tiruppur. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate Sr 71140+1cc to Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran, Advocate Sr 71074KM(CO)km/11.2.C.M.A.No.1395 of 2003