IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.11.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.535 OF 2008 The Managing Director, Karnataka State Transport Corporation Ltd., Bangalore. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Parasuraman ... Respondent/Claimant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 26.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1069 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant : Mr.A.Babu For Respondent : Mr.G.Rajan J U D G M E N T The Transport Corporation has come on appeal before this court challenging the award of the Tribunal dated 26.04.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1069 of 2006. 2. In this case, the accident took place on 01.01.2006. The injured claimant, aged 60 years, a milk vendor by profession was travelling in a cycle carrying milk can on the Tirukoilur-Villupuram Main road, he was hit by the appellant Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.KA.01.F.7983. He sustained fractures and grievous injuries. He was treated at Government General Hospital, Villupuram for a period of one month. He filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. 3. To prove his claim, the injured claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P1, certified copy of the First Information Report, dt. 02.01.2006; Ex.P2, certified copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, dt. 03.01.2006; Ex.P3, certified copy of the Accident Register, dt.01.01.2006; Ex.P4, Discharge Summary, dt. 01.01.2006; Ex.P5, certified copy of the Charge Sheet, dt. 02.01.2006; Ex.P6, series of Bills; Ex.P7, series of medical bills; Ex.P8, Ultra Sonogram; Ex.P9, series of medical bills; Ex.P10, Disability Certificate, dt. 19.03.2007 and Ex.P11, X-ray were marked on the side of the claimant. On behalf of the Transport Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked on their side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the liability fixed on the appellant Transport Corporation is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only contention raised is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 5. The issue regarding the quantum of compensation was dealt with by the Tribunal as Issue No.3 in paragraph No.7 of its order. The details of the award passed by the Tribunal are as follows: (i)Total loss of income : Rs.1,20,000.00 (Rs.2000/- x 12 x multiplier of '5') (ii)Medical expenses (as per Exs.A6 & A7) : Rs.1,30,000.00 (iii)Grievous injuries : Rs. 60,000.00 (iv)Simple injuries : Rs. 6,000.00 (v)Permanent disability : Rs. 45,000.00 (vi)Pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 ------------------ Total : Rs.3,66,000.00 ------------------ 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant are not serious; while so, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier method to grant compensation. The Tribunal also erred in granting compensation for grievous and simple injuries, when compensation for the permanent disability is granted separately. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 (Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. vs. Ahmed Thambi), para 19 of which, reads as under: "19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the Tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary, the Tribunal shall consider : (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenity, (c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc. (d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary losses, the Tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised. The reference is answered accordingly. ..." 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that in the present case, multiplier method cannot be adopted as it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contrary to the principle laid down in a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer, Tiruchengode vs. Veluchamy and another), the relevant portion reads as under: "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method" cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income of 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 till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if 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 or 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 reply, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that the injured claimant was aged 60 years at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month; he suffered severe injuries on his head, forehead, ears and simple injuries on his left ankle, left eye and face. P.W.2, the Doctor, who examined the claimant has assessed the disability at 45%. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant was treated in a Hospital for a period of one month. He contended that no amount was granted by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, loss of income during the period of hospitalisation and towards transportation expenses. He also pleaded that the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the claimant at least at Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas, the income fixed is a meagre sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, according to him, the compensation granted towards permanent disability should not be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reduced and it should be confirmed. 10. On going through the award of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has granted compensation on the heads of 'grievous injuries', 'simple injuries', 'disability assessed at 45%' and also on the head of 'total loss of income due to disability'. The compensation under all these four heads cannot be given, in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Cholan Roadways, as cited above. However, the findings of the Tribunal based on the Doctor's evidence is that the claimant has suffered severe injuries and due to his old age his ability to work as before is affected. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal is justified in adopting the multiplier method to determine the pecuniary loss. 11. One error that has been committed by the Tribunal is that, while determining the compensation towards 'total loss of income', the percentage of disability has not been taken into consideration. Further, the income of the injured claimant was stated to be Rs.5,000/- per month. In view of a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 2002 ACJ 233 (B.Anandhi vs. R.Latha) and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) L.W.1 (State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others), the income of the injured claimant can be taken as Rs.3,000/- and not Rs.2,000/-. The compensation towards 'total loss of income' should have to be determined based on 45% disability assessed by P.W.2, the Doctor. 12. In view of the Full Bench decisions, the compensation in a sum of Rs.60,000/- granted towards grievous injuries; Rs.6,000/- for simple injuries and Rs.45,000/- towards 45% permanent disability are set aside. The compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- towards 'total loss of income' has to be re-worked based on 45% permanent disability sustained by the claimant. The monthly income of the claimant is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.Since it is not a case of total disability and by applying the parameters of Veluchamy's case, the multiplier of '5' is applied to this case. The annual income is Rs.36,000/-. For the 45% permanent disability, the compensation towards 'total loss of income'' works out to Rs.81,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x '5' x 45/100). This court is inclined to award compensation under the heads, (a) extra nourishment, (b) transportation charges, (c) attendant charges, (d) loss of income during the period of treatment and (e) treatment for physiotherapy to which the claimant is entitled. The compensation under the head 'pain and suffering' is enhanced considering the age of the claimant and the nature of injuries suffered. The award of the Tribunal is therefore modified as detailed below: (i) Total loss of income :Rs. 81,000.00 (Rs.3000/- x 12 x multiplier of '5' x 45/100) (ii) Medical expenses (as per Exs.A6 & A7) :Rs.1,30,000.00 (iii)Pain and suffering :Rs. 20,000.00 (iv) Extra nourishment :Rs. 7,500.00 (v) Transportation charges :Rs. 7,500.00 (vi) Attendant Charges :Rs. 5,000.00 (vii)Loss of income during the period of treatment :Rs. 10,000.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (viii)Treatment for physiotherapy : Rs.10,000.00 --------------- Total :Rs.2,71,000.00 --------------- 13. Since the accident happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed by the Tribunal in the year 2007, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum stands confirmed. 14. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed on the following terms : (a) the award of Rs.3,66,000/- passed by the Tribunal is reduced and the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,71,000/- as compensation. (b) the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. (c) there will be no order as to costs. (d) connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 stands closed. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has deposited the entire award amount in the Tribunal as per the order of this court dated 08.02.2008 and that he may be permitted to withdraw the excess amount after settling the claimant. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation as per the order of this court with interest and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance award amount with interest. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. abe To : The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Tiruvannamalai. + 1 CC to Mr.A.Babu, Advocate SR.NO.63787 + 1 CC to Mr.G.Rajan, Advocate SR.NO.63818 C.M.A.No.535 OF 2008 CK(CO) EM/18.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/