IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.12.2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A. No. 1728 of 2008 ........ United India Insurance Company Ltd., Pondicherry 605 001. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1. Aruljothi 2. Renganathan .. Respondents/Claimant/ Ist Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 5.12.2006 made in MCOP No. 909 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr. S. Arunkumar For Respondents : Mr. V.K. Rajagopalan – R1 No Appearance – R2 ------ JUDGMENT The United India Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 5.12.2006 made in MCOP No. 909 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 14.10.2003. The claimant Aruljothi, aged 19 years, employed in a readymade store, Kurunchipalayam, was travelling as a passenger in the bus insured with the appellant. The said bus ploughed into the house of one Selvaraj at Chithalikuppam and overturned. In that accident, the claimant suffered fracture in the left hip and injuries to other parts of the body. She was treated in Cuddalore Government Hospital from 14.10.2003 to 20.10.2003 and thereafter, at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. She claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation stating that her income was Rs.4,000/- p.m. In the very same accident, many passengers, who were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ travelling in the bus also suffered injuries. All the injured persons filed claim petitions claiming compensation.MCOP No. 907 of 2004 was filed by Sivasankari. MCOP No. 908 of 2004 was filed by Silambarasan and MCOP No. 909 of 2004 was filed by Aruljothi, the first respondent/ claimant herein. All the claim petitions were heard and disposed of by the Tribunal by a common award. 3. In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.3 and one Dr. Sivasubramaniam was examined as P.W.4. On behalf of the present claimant documents Exs.P8 to P17 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was let in by the appellant/ second respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, who caused the accident and the injuries, and the liability fixed on the insurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed and the same is confirmed. 5. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.2,500/- p.m. Based on the disability assessed at 40% and considering the age, income, occupation, nature of injuries suffered and the period of treatment, the Tribunal by adopting 16 multiplier, granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning capacity due to disability at 40% Rs.1,92,000/- 2 Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs. 1,450/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.2,23,450/- (wrongly calculated at Rs.2,13,450/-) 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the case of injuries, higher multiplier as in the case of death, need not be applied and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand pleaded that no amount has been granted for attender charges, loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ income during the period of treatment. He also submitted that in the event of Court not accepting the plea for compensation based on multiplier method, suitable compensation may be granted for the disability assessed at 40%. 8. A Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483, set out the principles as to when multiplier method should be adopted in a case of injury in para 11 which reads as follows:- "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. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 9. In this case, consequent to the accident and injury, the claimant was treated as out patient for the period from 14.10.2003 to 20.10.2003. The disability though assessed at 40%. There is no material to show that due to the injuries, he has suffered permanent disability thereby affecting his earning capacity for the rest of his life. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal is not justified in adopting multiplier method. The facts of the present case does not fall within the parameter of the aforesaid Division Bench decision. Therefore, the sum of Rs.1,92,000/- granted towards pecuniary loss due to injuries is set aside. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, for the disability assessed at 40%, reasonable compensation should be granted to the claimant. She is also entitled to just compensation for attender charges and loss of income during the period of treatment. For the disability assessed at 40% a sum of Rs.60,000/- is granted. Considering the age of the injured claimant, she is entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the injured claimant took treatment from 14.10.2003 to 20.10.2003, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000 towards attender charges, and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and recovery. The lady injured claimant, who suffered injuries to the hip region, will be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Other amounts granted by the Tribunal are confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of earning capacity due to disability at 40% Rs.1,92,000/- --- 2 Disability at 40% -- Rs. 60,000/- 3 Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs. 1,450/- Rs. 1,450/- 6 Transport expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7 Loss of income during the period of treatment --- Rs. 10,000/- 8 Loss of amenities --- Rs. 20,000/- 9 Attender charges --- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.2,23,450/- (wrongly calculated at Rs.2,13,450/-) Rs. 1,31,450/- 11. Since the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2006, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.1,31,450/- from Rs.2,23,450/-. (ii) The interest granted at the rate of 7.5% p.a. is confirmed. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the order of this Court dated 26.6.2008, entire award amount has been deposited. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. (iv) The appellant is entitled to withdraw excess amount in deposit after settling the claimant. (v) There shall be no orders as to costs. (vi) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore. + 1 CC To Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan, Advocate SR NO.71881 + 1 CC To Mr.N.Rosi Naidu, Advocate SR NO.72076 CMA No. 1728 of 2008 VSV {CO} TP/13.3.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/