Appellant/3rd Respondent v. R.Senniappan & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 6.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.928 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2008The Branch Manager,M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Karur. ...Appellant/3rd Respondent vs.1.R.Senniappan,2.Palanisamy alias Chinnasamy,3.V.Ramasamy. ...Respondents/Petitioner and respondents 1 and 2Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.8.2008passed in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2006 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam.For appellant : Mr.J.ChandranFor 1st respondent : Mr.N.ManoharanJUDGMENTThe first respondent/caveator/claimant appears through counsel.By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up fordisposal. 2. The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging theaward dated 28.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2006 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court),Gobichettipalayam. 3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of this case are asfollows:- The accident in this case happened on 26.7.2005 at 9.30p.m. The injured claimant R.Senniappan, aged about 45 years andsaid to be working as an agricultural coolie and a cattle broker, wastravelling on a cycle. At that time, the bus insured with theappellant insurance company driven by the driver in a rash andnegligent manner hit the cyclist Senniappan. In that accident, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said Senniappan suffered grievous injuries. The right hand of thesaid Senniappan was seriously injured and it was amputated. He alsosuffered fracture to left hand and skull fracture. He was treated atGovernment Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, then at CoimbatoreGovernment Hospital and thereafter, at Coimbatore Medical CollegeHospital. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.11,75,000/-, stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- permonth at the time of accident.4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examinedas P.W.1. Dr.K.Periyasamy was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-12were marked, the details of which are as follows:-Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., dated 26.7.2005,Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 27.7.2005,Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of wound certificate,Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of rough sketch,Ex.A-5 is the certified coy of charge sheet dated 11.1.2006,Ex.A-6 is the note book recording the treatment given to the injured claimant by the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital,Ex.A-7 is the medical receipt, Ex.A-8 is the medical bill,Ex.A-9 is the scan report,Ex.A-10 is the CT Scan,A-11 series are the X-Rays (three in number) andEx.A-12 is the wound certificate dated 23.8.2008 assessing the disability at 80%. No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellantinsurance company, the third respondent before the Tribunal.5. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver ofthe bus insured with appellant and the liability fixed on theappellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is notdisputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Such finding ofthe Tribunal is confirmed. The only contention raised by the counselfor the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Since the injured claimant is an agriculturist and a cattlebroker, the Tribunal fixed the income of the injured at Rs.4,000/-per month. Considering the nature of injury which is amputation ofright hand and the long period of treatment in different hospital andalso taking into consideration the nature of employment as anagricultural coolie, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the injuredclaimant has lost his capacity to earn as before and the injury andamputation is affected his livelihood to a very great extent.Therefore, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 based on the age ofthe injured claimant and determined the compensation as follows with7.5% interest:-Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 15 x 80%= Rs.5,76,300/-)Rs.5,76,300/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8 medical billRs. 34,319/-3Pain and sufferingsRs. 20,000/-4Extra nourishment expensesRs. 5,000/-5Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-TotalRs.6,40,619/-(wronglycalculated toRs.6,40,319/-)7. In appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that thoughthe Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier method todetermine the compensation in a case of injury of this natureresulting in amputation of the right hand, the multiplier as in thecase of death need not be adopted. He relied upon the decision of aDivision Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 wherein thiscourt sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can beadopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision readsthus:-"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.(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? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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."He therefore, sought for reduction in quantum of compensation.8. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ claimanton the other hand pleads that no amount has been granted towardsattender charges and towards loss of income during the period oftreatment and convalescence and meagre amount has been grantedtowards extra nourishment considering the long period of treatment.She justified the quantum of compensation on the whole. 9. The injured claimant is aged about 45 years at the time ofaccident and an agricultural coolie. Keeping in mind the parameterslaid down in the Division Bench judgment cited above, the Tribunal isjustified in adopting the multiplier method and determining thequantum of compensation. However, as held by the Division Bench ofthis Court the question of adopting the multiplier as in the case ofdeath will not be justified. The injured claimant though cannotwork as before, he can do some other form of work without physicalstrength. This Court is inclined to fix the multiplier at 13considering the fact that no amount has been granted for attendercharges and towards loss of income during the period of treatment andconvalescence. The court is also aware of the fact that meagreamount has been granted for extra nourishment. He also needs to betaken care of medically for the rest of his life as he suffered notonly injuries to the right hand, but also to the left hand and skull.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined tomodify the award of the Tribunal as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.Head Amount grantedby theTribunalAmount grantedby this Court1Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x12 x 15 x 80% = Rs.5,76,300/-)Rs.5,76,300/----1(a)Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x12 x 13 x 80% = Rs.4,99,200/-)---Rs.4,99,200/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8medical billsRs. 34,319/-Rs. 34,319/-3Pain and sufferingsRs. 20,000/-Rs. 20,000/-4Extra nourishment expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-5Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-TotalRs.6,40,619/-(wronglycalculated toRs.6,40,319/-)Rs.5,63,519/-rounded of toRs.5,63,600/-There is no dispute with regard to interest granted at 7.5% and thesame is confirmed. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partlyallowed as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,63,600/- fromRs.6,40,319/-.(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% standsconfirmed. (iii) As requested by the counsel for the appellant, theappellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit the award amountand on such deposit the first respondent/claimant is permitted towithdraw the same. (iv) There will be no order as to costs. (v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Principal Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Gobichettipalayam.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate. S.R.No.12805.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. J. Chandran, Advocate. S.R.No.12452. Judgment in C.M.A.No.928 of 2009 KA (CO)GSK 18.04.2009.