IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3894 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Pondicherry .. Appellant/ II Respondent Vs. 1.K.Alex Pandaian 2.S.V.Ramasamy .. Respondents / Petitioner/ ISt Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 06.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.190 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Principal Subordinate Judge) villupuram District. For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran For respondent No.1 : Mr. V.Jaganathan J U D G M E N T The Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award dated 06.12.2006 made in M.C.O.P No.190 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Principal Subordinate Judge) villupuram District. 2. Claimant is represented by counsel, who took notice at the time of condonation of delay and also at the time of admission and 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 injured claimant-Alex Pandian, aged about 26 years, was walking on the road when he was hit by a lorry insured with the appellant herein and in that accident he suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted inJIPMER Hospital at Pondicherry and treated as in patient for eight days. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- stating that his income was Rs.6,000/- per month and he was an interior decorator by occupation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined 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 of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P.3 is the copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.P.4 is the Driving licence. Ex.P.5 is the copy of R.C.book. Ex.P.6 is the Permit. Ex.P.7 is the discharge chit Ex.P.8 is the medical summary. Ex.P.9 is the medical bills. No documentary or oral evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who caused the grievous accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the Insurance Company- appellant to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal decided 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 as the income is concerned, in the absence of specific document, the Tribunal fixed the income of the injured as Rs.3,000/- p.m. The age of the injured claimant was taken as 26 years and the Tribunal adopted 18 multiplier in terms of Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act 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/-) The Tribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with 7.5% interest. Sl.N0 . Head Amount granted by the Tribunal. 1 For disability 40% Rs. 2,59,200/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs 2,69,200/- 6. In appeal, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Tribunal is not justified in granting compensation by adopting multiplier method as the injured in this case sustained a fracture of ankle joint, which was healed after treatment taken at JIPMER Hospital at Pondicherry. There is no document to show that after the completion of the treatment at JIPMER hospital, he has been taking further treatment and that his disability is continuing for the rest of his life. He, however stated that for the disability assessed just https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation can be granted and also compensation under the pecuniary and non pecuniary heads. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, stated that meagre amount has been granted for pain and suffering and no amount has been granted for extra nourishment, transport expenses, attendant charges,and for loss of income during the period of treatment. He pleaded for suitable compensation on all heads. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:- "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." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In the present case, except medical records, which is contemporaneous to the injuries suffered, there is no other records to show that the disability is continuing after the treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in adopting the multiplier method. The claimant, however, will be entitled to compensation for disability assessed and compensation on other heads as pointed out by the counsel for the claimant. The plea for compensation for medical expenses was turned down by the Tribunal for want of details. A Certified copy of the medical bill was produced by the counsel for the appellant and it only shows that the claimant spent Rs.133/-. Claimant did not produce bill with proper indication. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not granting any amount on this head. Since there is no material, to support the claim of total disability and loss of earning capacity, the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.2,59,200/- for disability based on multiplier method is set aside. However, considering the age, injury, disability assessed and treatment given, the claimant will be entitled to just compensation on various heads as below and the award is modified as follows: Sl.N o. Award Amount granted by this Court 1 For permanent disability of 40% Rs. 60,000/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- 3 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs, 9,000/- 4 Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- 6 Extra nourishment Rs. 7,500/- Total Rs. 1,06,500/- The interest granted at the rate of 7.5 % stands confirmed as the accident happened in the year 2006. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed as follows: i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,06,500/- from Rs.2,69,200/- ii) The interest granted at the rate of 7.5% by the Tribunal is confirmed. iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks six weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv) No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To 1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram 2. The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Chennai 1 cc to Mr. J. Chandran, Advocate, SR. 69811 1 cc to Mr.V. Jegannathan, Advocate, SR. 69653 CMA No. 3894 of 2008 GV (CO) kk 20/1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/