IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :21.09.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.1771 of 2007 The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem 636 007 .. Appellant/Respondent -vs- E.Rajesh .. Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.5.2006 made in MCOP.No.181 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Court, Dharmapuri. For Appellant : Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi For respondent : Ms.P.Malliga J U D G M E N T The Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal as against the award of Rs.4,92,747/- in respect of an injury caused to the respondent/claimant in the accident. 2. The accident is admitted. Liability is also admitted. Only the quantum is disputed. Even in respect of the quantum, only the multiplier method adopted as well as the further grant of 80% disability is mainly disputed. Hence, questioning the quantum, the appeal is filed. 3. As far as the claim is concerned, the respondent would contend that the respondent suffered multiple injuries, namely there was a head injury and as the result of which, there was bleeding of the ear at the time of the accident, Traumatic Optic Neuropathy and swelling on right foot. As per the CT Scan, it was a head injury and evidence of a large EDH with associated SDH (approximately measuring 8 x 1 1.7x7 cm) seen in the right fronto parietal region and evidence of multiple fractures invoking right tempero parietal bone and evidence of soft throve condition seen in the right tempero region and peri orbital swelling on the right side with evidence of a large air collection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. P.Ws. 3 to 5 Doctors have been examined. They are Neuro Surgeon, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Eye Surgeon, who gave the disability Certificate at 40%, 30% and 20% respectively. Therefore, the disability is a permanent one. There is a fracture in the skull and due to this, he may have taken treatment continuously and there is a slight opening in the head. Further treatment is expected continuously. There is loss of memory and he is unable to work and he lost eye sight at 20%. Therefore, according to the respondent, the quantum fixed by the court below was reasonable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point for consideration is whether the respondent/claimant is entitled to the compensation as awarded by the court below or it is excessive. 7. In the present case, the accident is admitted and the liability is also admitted and only the quantum is disputed. The lower court has granted award as follows: Heads Amount granted by the lower Court Rs. Transport expenses Rs. 6,900/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 54,847/- Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of income Rs. 3,06,000/- 80% disability Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 4,92,747/- 8. In this appeal mainly it was questioned that towards loss of income, Rs.3,06,000/- was awarded. Further, for 80% disability, Rs.80,000/- was awarded. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CHOLAN ROADWAY CORPORATION LIMITED V. AHMED THAMBI (2006 (4) CTC 433), the said calculation is legally not sustainable and while awarding the compensation, the multiplier theory invoking 17 multiplier is legally not sustainable. 9. But the respondent would contend that by examination of three doctors, the permanent disability has been duly proved. Therefore, even in the case of an injury, the multiplier theory could be adopted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. On considering the evidence of P.WS. 3 to 5 as well as the disability certificate Exs.A.16, A.13 and A.11 issued by the three doctors, it is very clear that because of the accident, the claimant had sustained severe injuries including the clot in the brain and air penetrating into the brain area and the fracture of the face bones. Coupled with this fact, there has been a surgery in the head. Due to this, he lost his eye sight in the right eye to an extent of 20% and a small portion of skull in the right side of the head is missing, due to which, he has pain in the head, lack of sleep, lost memory power and giddiness through out his life. Apart from this, even in the right foot, there is a fracture in the fifth metararsal bone and it is mal-union. Therefore, he is unable to walk and do heavy work and the loss of disability is 25%. Under those circumstances, the claimant sustained serious injuries and took treatment continuously for a period of more than 4 months. Even though he was in the hospital for a period of 15 days, he has taken treatment continuously and he was even operated in the head. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he has lost his job. But, there is no evidence whether he has rejoined duty after some time. But, unfortunately, he lost his income during the period of treatment, atleast for a period of five months. 11. Basing on these evidence, even though the injuries are very serious, but unfortunately the court below has wrongly adopted the multipler theory without giving any reason and also further included a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards disability at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per percentage of disability, which is wrong as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court cited supra. 12. Now, taking into consideration the above facts, the actual loss of income to be given to the petitioner is based on the total 80% disability, which is inclusive of all the three disabilities. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court, upto Rs.2,000/- could be granted for per percentage of disability. Therefore, for 80% disability, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per disability, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- could be granted instead of Rs.3,06,000/- granted by the court below towards loss of income. But, at the same time, the lower court granted only a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. As stated supra, considering the severe injury and the loss of eye sight to the tune of 20% in the right eye and his suffering due to the operation of the skull, the same may be increased to Rs.60,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. The lower court has granted a sum of Rs.54,847/- towards medical expenses, which can be rounded off to Rs.55,000/-. For future medical expenses, the lower court has granted Rs.15,000/-. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, it could be increased to Rs.25,000/-. For transport expenses, the court below has granted only Rs.6,900/-, which could be raised to Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, for extra nourishment, the court has granted only 5,000/-, which can be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Thus, towards loss of income during the relevant point of taking treatment atleast for a period of six months, a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- could be granted. Towards loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- could be granted. Thus, totalling, a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- could be awarded along with interest at 7.5% per annum. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation amount of Rs.4,92,747/- to Rs.3,80,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum. It is represented that the appellant has deposited the entire amount awarded by the court below. The excess amount deposited by the appellant will be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant Transport Corporation and the respondent/claimant has also withdrawn 50% of the amount deposited and the balance amount could be withdrawn by the respondent/claimant. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ajr To 1.The Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal and Additional District Court, Dharmapuri • 1 cc to M/s. P. Malliga Advocate Sr.69511 • 1 cc to Mrs. B Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR.69763 C.M.A.No.1771 of 2007 SP(CO) Eu 4.12.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/