The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division-I,Ramakrishna Main Road,Salem-7 v. Manasheh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.3.2009CoramThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKARCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.630 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division-I,Ramakrishna Main Road,Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs.Manasheh. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 ofMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated25.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2005 on the file of theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate),Salem.For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appealchallenging the award dated 25.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.80 of2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (ChiefJudicial Magistrate), Salem. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the caseare as follows:- The accident in this case happened on11.1.2004. The injured claimant Manasheh, aged 49 years, aPastor, was travelling in the appellant transport corporationbus. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of theappellant transport corporation bus, the bus hit the parkedtrailer lorry. In that accident, the said Manasheh sustainedhead injury and injuries to other parts of the body. He was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first treated at C.M. Hospital, Namakkal and then at VidhyaHospital, Salem from 11.1.2004 to 12.1.2004. Thereafter, he wastreated in Pushpam General Hospital from 17.1.2004 to 9.2.2004as per Ex.A-1. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.5 lakhs for the injury suffered in the accident.3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant wasexamined as P.W.1. Dr.Chellanathan, was examined as P.W.2.Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked, the details of which are asfollows:-Ex.A-1 is the true copy of FIR dated 11.1.2004, Ex.A-2 series are the medical receipts,Ex.A-3 series are the medical bills for Rs.31,177/-,Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary,Ex.A-5 is the ECG report dated 12.1.2004,Ex.A-6 is the lab reports dated 13.1.2004,Exs.A-7 and A-9 are the X-Rays,Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate dated 16.2.2008 andEx.A-10 is the copy of accident register and discharge summary. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation,Mr.S.Muthusamy, the driver of the appellant transportcorporation bus, was examined as R.W.1. No document wasmarked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.4. The Tribunal discussed the negligence and held that thenegligence was on the part of the driver of the appellanttransport corporation bus based on Ex.A-1 FIR and the oralevidence of the injured claimant. There is no material tocontrovert the same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal tothe Tribunal on merits. The finding of negligence on the partof the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, asresponsible for the accident and the injury and the liabilityfixed on the appellant transport corporation, cannot be and isnot seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in theappeal and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, whichis the only serious issue canvassed, the same was dealt with bythe Tribunal in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the award in answer to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ point No.2. Based on the accident register Ex.A-10, theTribunal fixed the age of the injured at 49 years. P.W.2 doctorassessed the disability at 60% and issued the disabilitycertificate Ex.A-8. The Tribunal, however fixed the disabilityat 30%. Stating that no document was filed in proof of theincome of the injured, the Tribunal fixed notional income atRs.15,000/- per annum in terms of second schedule to Section163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Based on the age, the Tribunaladopted multiplier 13, and fixed the loss of income of theinjured claimant at Rs.58,500/- (Rs.15,000/- x 13 x 30% =Rs.58,500/-). In addition, considering the oral and documentaryevidence, the Tribunal also granted the following amount ascompensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of income for the disabilityassessed at 30%Rs. 58,500/-2Extra nourishment expensesRs. 5,000/-3Pain and sufferingRs. 10,000/-4Attender charges Rs. 5,000/- 5Medical expenses as per Ex.A-3Rs. 31,177/-6Loss of income during the period oftreatment and convalescence (3months)Rs. 5,000/-7Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.1,19,677/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellantpleaded that the sum of Rs.58,500/- granted towards loss ofincome for 30% disability based on the multiplier method is notcorrect. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to bereduced.7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Courtis not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation onthe above said contention for the following reasons:-(i) The accident in this case happened on 11.1.2004. Theinjured claimant at the time of accident was 49 years oldand was working as Pastor.(ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimantwas first treated at C.M. Hospital, Namakkal and then atVidhya Hospital, Salem from 11.1.2004 to 12.1.2004.Thereafter, he was treated in Pushpam General Hospital from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.1.2004 to 9.2.2004 as per Ex.A-1. The doctor in hisevidence has stated that the claimant suffered grievousinjuries and he issued disability certificate Ex.A-8assessing the disability at 60%. The Tribunal, however,reduced the same to Rs.30% without any reason. (iii) The Division Bench of this Court in United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reportedin 2005 ACJ 1483 sets out the parameters as to when themultiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. InParagraph 11 of the decision reads thus:-"11. The following principles emerge from theabove discussion:(a) In all cases of injury or permanentdisablement 'multiplier method' cannot bemechanically applied to ascertain the futureloss of income or earning power.(b) It depends upon various factorssuch as nature and extent of disablement,avocation of the injured and whether itwould affect his employment or earningpower, etc. and if so, to what extent?(c) (1) If there is categoricalevidence that because of injury andconsequential disability, the injured losthis employment or avocation completely andhas to be idle for the rest of his life, inthat event loss of income or earnings may beascertained by applying the 'multipliermethod' as provided under the SecondSchedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.(2) Even so there is no need to adoptthe same period as that of fatal cases asprovided under the Schedule. If there is noamputation and if there is evidence to showthat there is likelihood of reduction orimprovement in future years, lesser periodmay be adopted for ascertainment of loss ofincome.(d) Mainly it depends upon theavocation or profession or nature ofemployment being attended by the injured atthe time of accident." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is no finding by the Tribunal that by the nature ofinjury suffered by the injured claimant, his earningcapacity and employment is totally affected. There is nofinding that the disablement in this case assessed by thedoctor is such that his earning capacity is lost for therest of his life. There is no material to show that theinjured claimant will be idle for the rest of his life andconsequently, there will be a total loss of income.Therefore, the question of applying multiplier method inthis case does not arise as the parameters of paragraph 11of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of thisCourt in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamyand another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 are not attracted tothe facts of the present case. The multiplier methodadopted by the Tribunal, therefore, clearly is an error. (iv) The Tribunal, without any reason reduced the disabilityassessed at 60% by the doctor to 30%. If the disability asassessed by the doctor is taken, the compensation grantedby the Tribunal is reasonable. (v) The compensation granted under other heads are reasonableand the same is confirmed.(vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensationgranted in a sum of Rs.1,19,677/- is reasonable and doesnot require any further reduction as also the interestgranted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened inthe year 2004 and the award is of the year 2008. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isdismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellantseeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and isgranted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted towithdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.TsSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Salem.2) The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR No.8526KA(CO)SR/9.4.2009Judgment in C.M.A.No.630 of 2009