The Branch Manager,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Branch Office,M.M.Reddy Complex,Old Bangalore Road, Hosur v. V.Baskar & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 5.12.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.3773 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 2008The Branch Manager,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Branch Office,M.M.Reddy Complex,Old Bangalore Road, Hosur. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs.1.V.Baskar,2.C.Srinivasan.(2nd respondent was ex partebefore the Tribunal) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 30.3.2007 passedin M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal (First Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.For appellant : Mr.T.RavichandranFor 1st respondent : Mr.M.SelvamJUDGMENTThe first respondent/claimant appears through counsel. By consentof both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The United India Insurance Company is on appeal challenging theaward dated 30.3.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2003 on the file ofthe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge),Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of this case are as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follows:- The accident in this case happened on 18.12.2002. Accordingto the claim, the injured claimant V.Baskar, aged about 25 years, amason as well as an agriculturist, was travelling on a TVS moped, whichwas hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.MYH-7386. The said lorry isinsured with the appellant. Consequent to the accident, he sufferedgrievous injuries, which are as follows:-(i) fracture of right leg femur,(ii) deep injury on the right leg, left leg, foot and knee.He was treated at Government Hospital, Hosur, as inpatient andthereafter, shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore.He was treated for two weeks at that hospital. It is also stated by theclaimant that he was taking treatment in the private clinic at Hosur andKrishnagiri. Consequent to the injuries, the injured claimant filed aclaim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, stating that he wasearning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month.4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined asP.W.1. Dr.Gandhi was examined as P.W.2. The following documents weremarked:-Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R., dated 19.12.2002,Ex.A-2 is the copy of wound certificate dated 28.12.2002,Ex.A-3 is the copy of insurance policy,Ex.A-4 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 28.2.2003,Ex.A-5 is the copy of criminal court judgment dated 28.5.2003,Ex.A-6 is the copy of wound certificate dated 28.2.2003,Ex.A-7 series are medical bills for Rs.3,018.05 Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate andEx.A-9 series are the X-RaysNo oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellantinsurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal.5. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of thelorry insured with appellant and the liability fixed on the appellantinsurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed by thelearned counsel for the appellant. Such finding of the Tribunal isconfirmed.6. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was decided by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal from paragraphs 12 onwards of the award in answer to pointNo.3. Exs.A-2 and A-6 are the wound certificates which show the natureof injuries suffered by the claimant. Doctor P.W.2 assessed thedisability at 60% under Ex.A-7. The Tribunal, however, reduced the sameto 40%. As far as income is concerned, taking note of the period ofaccident (i.e.) December 2002 and the nature of occupation of theinjured claimant, viz., mason and agricultural work, the Tribunal in theabsence of evidence fixed the income at Rs.2,500/- per month and theannual income at Rs.30,000/-, though the injured claimed the monthlyincome at Rs.4,000/- per month. Holding that the injury will affectthe earning capacity of the claimant in agricultural and masonry work,the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and invoked 17 multiplier interms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, andcalculated the life dependency of the injured at Rs.5,10,000/-. Out ofthe said amount, 1/3 was deducted leaving the balance of Rs.3,40,000/-and for 40% disability, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,36,000/-(Rs.3,40,000/- x 40% = Rs.1,36,000/-) towards loss of earning. TheTribunal also granted amounts towards medical expenses, etc. In all,the Tribunal granted compensation as follows with 7.5% interest:Sl.No.HeadAmount granted bythe Tribunal1Loss of earning Rs.1,36,000/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-7 medical billsRs. 3,018/-3Pain and sufferings and nutritionRs. 5,000/-TotalRs.1,44,018/-7. Counsel for the appellant stated that there is no evidence tosupport the compensation granted by the Tribunal by adopting themultiplier method. In this case, after the treatment at the twohospitals, there is no other medical record to show that the disabilityis continuing even after the first period of treatment. He, however,fairly submitted that for the disability assessed, reasonablecompensation can be granted along with compensation on other heads like,extra nourishment, loss of income, attender charges, transport, etc.,which were omitted to be granted by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant on the otherhand pleaded that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal isjust and reasonable. If the Court is inclined to interfere with thecompensation on the ground that the multiplier method adopted by theTribunal is erroneous, adequate compensation may be granted on variousheads as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.9. The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 sets outthe parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in thecase of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "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 loss ofincome or earning power.(b) It depends upon various factors such asnature and extent of disablement, avocation of theinjured and whether it would affect his employment orearning power, etc. and if so, to what extent?(c) (1) If there is categorical evidence thatbecause of injury and consequential disability, theinjured lost his employment or avocation completelyand has to be idle for the rest of his life, in thatevent loss of income or earnings may be ascertainedby applying the 'multiplier method' as provided underthe Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.(2) Even so there is no need to adopt the sameperiod as that of fatal cases as provided under theSchedule. If there is no amputation and if there isevidence to show that there is likelihood ofreduction or improvement in future years, lesserperiod may be adopted for ascertainment of loss ofincome.(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation orprofession or nature of employment being attended bythe injured at the time of accident."10. There is no finding by the Tribunal that by the nature ofinjury suffered by the injured claimant, his earning capacity andemployment is totally affected. There is no finding that thedisablement in this case assessed by the doctor is such that his earningcapacity is lost for the rest of his life. There is no material to showthat the injured claimant will be idle for the rest of his life andconsequently, there will be a total loss of income. Therefore, thequestion of applying multiplier method in this case does not arise asthe parameters of paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision of the DivisionBench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. -Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 are not attracted tothe facts of the present case. The multiplier method adopted by theTribunal, therefore, clearly is an error. Accordingly, the compensationgranted based on multiplier method cannot be justified.11. However, as rightly pointed out by both the counsel, theinjured claimant will be entitled to reasonable compensation on other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ heads, which were omitted to be granted by the Tribunal.12. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.1,36,000/- granted towards loss ofearning based on multiplier method is set aside and the entire award ismodified as follows:- Sl.No.HeadAmount grantedby theTribunalAmount grantedby this Court1Loss of earning Rs.1,36,000/---- 1(a)For disability assessed at 60% andreduced to 40%---Rs. 50,000/-1(b)Loss of income during the periodof treatment---Rs. 10,000/-2Medical expenses as per Ex.A-7medical billsRs. 3,018/-Rs. 3,018/-3Pain and sufferings and nutritionRs. 5,000/----3(a)Pain and suffering---Rs. 30,000/-3(b)Extra nourishment---Rs. 7,500/-4Transport expenses incurred totravel to various hospitals---Rs. 10,000/-5Attender charges---Rs. 7,500/-TotalRs.1,44,018/-Rs. 1,18,018/-rounded of toRs. 1,18,100/-13. Since the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award waspassed in the year 2007, the interest granted at 7.5% stands confirmed. 14. Counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks' time todeposit the award amount as ordered by this court and on such deposit,the counsel for the claimant prays for withdrawal and are allowed. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partlyallowed as follows:-(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,18,100/- fromRs.1,44,018/-.(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. (iii) The appellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit theaward amount and on such deposit the first respondent/claimant ispermitted to withdraw the same. (iv) There will be no order as to costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsTo1.First Additional District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Ravichandran,Advocate, SR.68489+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Selvam,Advocate, SR.68482 C.M.A.No.3773 of 2008CK(CO)EM/22.12.08