Judgment · High Court

1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 24.08.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARC.M.A.(MD)No.1063 of 2006 The Branch ManagerTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.K.Pudur BranchMadurai Town. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Lakshmi Ammal ... Respondent/respondentPRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of MotorVehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.1357 of 2000, on the file of Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II,Madurai. For appellant : M/s.Rajnish PathiyilFor respondent : Mr.P.T.S.NarendravasanJ U D G M E N TThe Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.1357 of 2000,passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District &Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

It is a case of injury. The accident, in this case happened on25.02.2000. In that accident, Lakshmi, 50 years old, daily wages worker in a sugar mill suffered crush injury to the left hand index finger. Shewas treated in the Government Rajaji Hospital from 25.02.2000 to06.03.2000. She claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.

In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1.Two doctors were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exhibits A1 to A-5 were marked. The disability has been assessed at 15% under Ex.A-5. Theincome of the injured claimant was taken as Rs.3,500/- per month by the Tribunal and the Tribunal in this case adopted multiplier method and fixed the compensation for loss of earning power as follows: Rs.3,500x12x11x15/100 = Rs.69,300/-Besides, compensation has been granted on other heads. In all, the following amount has been granted as compensation with 7.5% interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2Sl.No.Head Amount granted by the Tribunal1For loss of earning powerRs. 69,300/-2For loss of amenitiesRs. 5,000/-3Pain and sufferingsRs. 5,000/-4Extra nourishmentRs. 2,000/-TotalRs. 81,300/- 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus and the liability to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Theonly plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal was not justified in adopting multiplier method in a case of this nature, more particularly, when the claimant has not established acase of total loss of earning power due to the injury to one finger and the evidence of the doctor was not to that effect.

This contention of the appellant is justified in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in United India InsuranceCo. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another (P.SATHASIVAM,J.) reported in2005 ACJ 1483. Paragraph 11 of the decision sets out the parameters asto when multiplier method should be followed:-"11. 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. (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 may be ascertained by applying the 'multiplier method' as provided under the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles 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 for ascertainment of loss of income. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident. "

The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in adopting multiplier method to grant compensation. However, the claimant in this case will be entitled to just compensation for the disability assessed at15% and higher compensation for pain and sufferings and for extra nourishment. The claimant will also be entitled to compensation for loss of income during the period of treatment and for attendant charges, which have been omitted by the Tribunal.

Considering all the above aspects, this Court is inclined to grant the following amount as compensation: (i) for disability assessed at 15%, the claimant will be entitled to Rs.20,000/-, (ii) for pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/-. (iii)Rs.3,000/- is granted for extra nourishment. (iv)for loss of income during the period of treatmentRs.9,000/- is granted, for attendant charges for two months, the claimant will be entitled to Rs.3,000/- which have been omitted to be granted by the Tribunal. (v) For loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal is justified.

There is no serious dispute with regard to interest at 7.5% perannum and the same is confirmed.

The award, therefore, stands modified as follows:-SlNoHead Amount granted by the TribunalAmount granted by this Court1Loss of earning power Rs. 69,300/-----2For disability at 15%----Rs. 20,000/-3For loss of amenitiesRs.5,000/-Rs. 5,000/-4For pain and sufferingsRs.5,000/-Rs. 10,000/-5For extra nourishmentRs.2,000/-Rs. 3,000/-6Loss of income during the period of treatment----Rs. 9,000/-7Attendant charges----Rs. 3,000/-TotalRs.81,300/-Rs. 50,000/-10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as follows:-(i)the award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.50,000/- fromRs.81,300/-.(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4(ii) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest as per the order of this Court and the excess in deposit can be withdrawn by the appellant Insurance Company after settling the claimant. (iii) There will be no order as to costs. (iv) Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Writs)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)ToThe Additional District & Sessions Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.+ 1 cc to M/s.Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate, SR No.32362Judgment inC.M.A.(MD)No.1063 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 200624.08.2010RRRJ/24.9.20104p/3c