The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Murugesan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.10.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.3049 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,Vellore. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Murugesan. ... Respondent/PetitionerCivil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 13.3.2006passed in M.C.O.P.No.773 of 2003 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai. For appellant : Mr.A.Babu -----JUDGMENTState Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 13.3.2006 passed in M.C.O.P.No.773 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.

It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 1.2.2003. The injured claimant, was travelling in the appellant'stransport corporation bus. Due to the rash and negligent driving, itis stated that the claimant Murugesan was thrown out of the bus and sustained grievous injuries. He therefore, filed a claim for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Sivakumar was examined as P.W.2. Dr.Raveendran was examined as P.W.3. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ex.P-1 is the FIR,Ex.P-2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet, Ex.P-4 is the Accident Register copy, Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate, Ex.P-6 is the photocopy of the transfer certificate, Ex.P-7 is the disability certificate andEx.P-8 is the X-ray. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal in this case held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, therespondent/claimant was thrown out of the bus. The conductor also did not take proper care with regard to the safety of the passengers and should have refused to accommodate more passengers than permitted. The driver should have taken more caution if the bus is over loaded. In such circumstances, the Tribunal held that the injury caused due to the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus.

The doctor under Ex.P-7, assessed the disability at 35%.The Tribunal, however, fixed the disability at 20%. By applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted by the Tribunal1Loss of income in future Rs.48,000/-2Medical expenses, attender charges and transport expenses Rs.10,000/-3Pain and sufferingRs. 5,000/-4Special compensation for a Plus 2 student, who suffered hip injury Rs.10,000/-TotalRs.73,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The first contention of the appellant's counsel is that the claimant, a boy aged about 18 years, was travelling carelessly in the appellant transport corporation bus and was therefore, thrown out and he sustained injuries. The driver is not at fault.

The Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the award has clearly comes to the conclusion that the bus was overcrowded. The driver and the conductor failed to take proper care to avoid overcrowding of the bus which resulted in the injured claimant being thrown out of the bus due to the sudden stopping of the vehicle. In the absence of oralor documentary evidence in support of the appellant's contention, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant'stransport corporation bus stands confirmed and the liability on the appellant as well.

As far as the compensation is concerned, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that the Tribunal adopted multiplier method to grant compensation. In paragraph 7 of the award, it is stated that the claimant suffered seven injuries and that is supported by Ex.P-4 accident register. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate which discloses fracture in superior and inferior pubicrami. The injured was in hospital for more than 50 days. The fact remains that after the treatment, the injured boy has recovered to some extent though not completely. The doctor assessed the disability at 35% under Ex.P-7. The Tribunal, however, has taken the disability at 20% and no reason has been given for it. Based on notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, by adopting 16 multiplier for the 18 years old injured boy, the Tribunal granted a sum ofRs.48,000/- as compensation toward loss of income in future and that is disputed by the appellant.

In this case, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunalcannot be justified in view of the decision of this Court in UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in2005 ACJ 1483.

The Division Bench of this Court in United India InsuranceCo. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:-"

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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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 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 the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted forascertainment 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. "In view of the above decision and the facts and circumstances of this case and the oral and documentary evidence on record considered by the Tribunal, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not justified. The Tribunal, however, has without any just or reasonable cause reduced the disability to 20% from 35%. TheTribunal has granted a meagre sum towards medical expenses, attender charges and transport expenses. Even the sum of Rs.5,000/- granted for pain and suffering is paltry. 11. The injured claimant was 18 years old plus 2 student. Hehas lost his valuable time in view of the accident and was unable togo to school. Even for the disability assessed at 35%, the claimantis entitled to Rs.40,000/- at least. The balance of Rs.8,000/- can be adjusted towards pain and suffering and for extra nourishment which has not been awarded.

Considering all these aspects, the nature of injuries, the age of the claimant, who was studying plus 2 at the time of accident, the compensation granted by the Tribunal does not require further reduction. Appellant has not made out a case for reduction of the compensation including interest at 7.5% as the accident happened on 1.2.2003 and the award was passed on 13.3.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/