The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Alex Pandaian & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.12. 2008CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKARC.M.A.No.3894 of 2008and M.P.No.1 of 2008The Divisional Manager,National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Pondicherry .. Appellant/ II Respondent Vs.1.K.Alex Pandaian2.S.V.Ramasamy .. Respondents / Petitioner/ISt Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against theaward and decree dated 06.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.190 of 2005 onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(PrincipalSubordinate Judge) villupuram District.For Appellant : Mr.J.ChandranFor respondent No.1 : Mr. V.Jaganathan J U D G M E N TThe Insurance Company has filed this appeal against theaward dated 06.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.190 of 2005 on the fileof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Principal SubordinateJudge) villupuram District. 2. Claimant is represented by counsel, who took notice atthe time of condonation of delay and also at the time of admissionand pleaded for final disposal on merits. Accordingly, by consent,appeal is heard and disposed off on merits. It is a case of injury.The accident in this case happened on 24.11.2004. The injuredclaimant-Alex Pandian, aged about 26 years, was walking on theroad when he was hit by a lorry insured with the appellant hereinand in that accident he suffered grievous injuries. He was admittedinJIPMER Hospital at Pondicherry and treated as in patient foreight days. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum ofRs.3,00,000/- stating that his income was Rs.6,000/- per month andhe was an interior decorator by occupation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant wasexamined as P.W.1 and Dr. Bernardshaw, was examined as P.W.2.Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. Ex.P.1 is the copy ofFirst Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector'sreport. Ex.P.3 is the copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.P.4 is theDriving licence. Ex.P.5 is the copy of R.C.book. Ex.P.6 is thePermit. Ex.P.7 is the discharge chit Ex.P.8 is the medicalsummary. Ex.P.9 is the medical bills. No documentary or oralevidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent beforethe Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver ofthe lorry who caused the grievous accident and the injury and theliability fixed on the Insurance Company- appellant to compensatethe claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant andthe same is confirmed.5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunaldecided the issue in paragraph 7 onwards in answer to Point No.2.As per Ex.P.10, the disability has been assessed at 40%. As far asthe income is concerned, in the absence of specific document, theTribunal fixed the income of the injured as Rs.3,000/- p.m. The ageof the injured claimant was taken as 26 years and the Tribunaladopted 18 multiplier in terms of Schedule II to the Motor VehiclesAct and determined the total pecuniary loss at Rs.2,59,200/- (i.e)Rs.3,000/- X 12 = Rs.36,000/- X 40/100 X 18 = Rs.2,59,200/-) TheTribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. In all,the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with7.5% interest. Sl.N0. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal.1For disability 40%Rs. 2,59,200/-2Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-TotalRs 2,69,200/- 6. In appeal, the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal is notjustified in granting compensation by adopting multiplier method asthe injured in this case sustained a fracture of ankle joint,which was healed after treatment taken at JIPMER Hospital atPondicherry. There is no document to show that after the completionof the treatment at JIPMER hospital, he has been taking furthertreatment and that his disability is continuing for the rest ofhis life. He, however stated that for the disability assessed just https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation can be granted and also compensation under thepecuniary and non pecuniary heads. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand,stated that meagre amount has been granted for pain and sufferingand no amount has been granted for extra nourishment, transportexpenses, attendant charges,and for loss of income during theperiod of treatment. He pleaded for suitable compensation on allheads. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another sets out theparameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in thecase of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:-"11. The following principles emerge from the abovediscussion:(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 factors suchas nature and extent of disablement, avocationof the injured and whether it would affect hisemployment or earning power, etc. and if so, towhat extent?(c) (1) If there is categorical evidencethat because of injury and consequentialdisability, the injured lost his employment oravocation completely and has to be idle for therest of his life, in that event loss of incomeor earnings may be ascertained by applying the'multiplier method' as provided under theSecond Schedule to Motor Vehicles 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 amputationand if there is evidence to show that there islikelihood of reduction or improvement infuture years, lesser period may be adopted forascertainment of loss of income.(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocationor profession or nature of employment beingattended by the injured at the time ofaccident." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In the present case, except medical records, which iscontemporaneous to the injuries suffered, there is no other recordsto show that the disability is continuing after the treatment.Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in adopting the multipliermethod. The claimant, however, will be entitled to compensation fordisability assessed and compensation on other heads as pointed outby the counsel for the claimant. The plea for compensation formedical expenses was turned down by the Tribunal for want ofdetails. A Certified copy of the medical bill was produced by thecounsel for the appellant and it only shows that the claimant spentRs.133/-. Claimant did not produce bill with proper indication.Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not granting any amount onthis head. Since there is no material, to support the claim oftotal disability and loss of earning capacity, the compensationawarded in a sum of Rs.2,59,200/- for disability based onmultiplier method is set aside. However, considering the age,injury, disability assessed and treatment given, the claimant willbe entitled to just compensation on various heads as below and theaward is modified as follows:Sl.No. AwardAmount grantedby this Court1For permanent disability of 40%Rs. 60,000/-2Pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/- 3Loss of income during the period oftreatmentRs, 9,000/-4Attendant chargesRs. 5,000/- 5 Transport expensesRs. 5,000/-6Extra nourishmentRs. 7,500/- TotalRs. 1,06,500/-The interest granted at the rate of 7.5 % stands confirmed as theaccident happened in the year 2006. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partlyallowed as follows:i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,06,500/- fromRs.2,69,200/- ii) The interest granted at the rate of 7.5% by the Tribunal isconfirmed.iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks six weeks' time todeposit the entire amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit,the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the orderof this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv) No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.PALTo1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Principal Subordinate Judge,Villupuram2. The Section OfficerVR Section, High Court, Chennai1 cc to Mr. J. Chandran, Advocate, SR. 698111 cc to Mr.V. Jegannathan, Advocate, SR. 69653 CMA No. 3894 of 2008GV (CO)kk 20/1