IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1811 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2008 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, 88-F,Bye pass Road, Dharmapuri .. Appellant/Respondent 2 Vs. 1.Thiru Durai 2. Smt.A.R.Prabhavathy .. Respondents/Claimant & Respondent 1 . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 11.09.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.743 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri District. . . . For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran For respondents : Mr. A.Arivudainambi . . . J U D G M E N T The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.743 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri District. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 09.06.2005 at about 16.00 hours. The injured claimant Durai, aged about 41 years, an agriculturist and also engaged in flower business was proceeding on a two wheeler along with one Subramani as a pillion rider from Pethanur to Regadahalli, when he was hit by a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-29-E-1414, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and insured with the appellant and in that accident, the said Durai suffered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fracture of left tibia bone and grievous injuries on the left thigh. He was treated at Government Head Quarters Hospital at Dharmapuri and thereafter taken to Manipal Hospital at Bangalore where he took treatment as in patient for 20 days from 10.06.2005 to 18.06.2005 and then from 04.07.05 to 11.07.2005. and also 25.9.2005 to 27.09.2005. In the course of hospitalisation, several medical proceedings were done. The injured filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- stating that his income was Rs.10,000/- per month. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1, one Subramani, Pillion rider was examined as P.W.2.One Venkatesan was examined as P.W.3 and Dr. Gandhi was examined as P.W.4. Documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. As far as the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle and the liability fixed on the Insurance Company appellant to compensate the claimant is not disputed. Accordingly, the said finding is confirmed. 5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal based on the disability assessed at 40% under Ex.P15, and also taking note of the other medical records relating to the treatment given on various occasions, adopted the multiplier method and granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5%. Sl.N o. Award Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability of 40% Rs. 2,16,000/- 2. Partial loss of earnings Rs. 3,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs 10,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs, 1,06,489/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 13,500/- 6 Extra Nourishment Rs. 5, 000/- 7 Attendant charges Rs, 2, 000/- Total Rs. 3,55,989/- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the total compensation in this case is excessive as the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 15 and therefore, the award amount has to be reduced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, produced copies of discharge summaries for having taken treatment at Manipal Hospital and stated that there was prolonged medical proceedures done to the claimant and therefore, his present condition is that he is totally unable to work and earn as before and therefore, reasonable compensation should be granted to him. Meagre amounts have been granted for pain and suffering and for loss of income during the period of treatment. Therefore, he justified the award. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another (cited supra) 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attended by the injured at the time of accident." 9. In this case, the injured claimant, an agriculturist, aged 43 years has undergone successive medical treatment at different hospitals and took treatment as in patient for 20 days, which is supported by EXs.P.2 to P.5. The income of the injured claimant was fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month by the Tribunal. The disability assessed at 40% by the doctor. Now, the learned counsel for the claimant stated that he is unable to work and earn as before. However, the possibility of getting income by other sources by the injured claimant has to be considered. As pointed out by the Division Bench, (cited supra) the multiplier as in the case of death, cannot be applied to the case of injury. Considering all these factors and the fact that the injured claimant is getting lumpsum amount pursuant to the accident, the multiplier 10 as against 15, can be adopted. Therefore, the total pecuniary loss will be Rs.3,000/- X 12 = Rs. 36,000 X 40/100 X 10 = Rs.1,44,000/- The claimant will be entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, totally Rs.20,000/-. For attendant charges, he is entitled to Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/- granted by the Tribunal. Towards extra nourishment, he is entitled to a further sum of Rs.5,000/- totalling to Rs.10,000/- For loss of income during the period of treatment, the claimant is entitled to Rs.9,000/- The amounts granted for medical expenses and Transport charges are stands confirmed. In all, the award is modified and the claimant is entitled to the amounts as follows: Sl.N o. Award Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by This Court 1 Loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability of 40% Rs. 2,19,000/- Rs. 1,44,000/- 2. Loss of income during the treatment Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 9,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs 10,000/- Rs 20,000 /- 4 Medical expenses Rs, 1,06,489/- Rs 1,06,489/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 13,500/- Rs. 13,500/- 6 Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7 Attendant charges Rs, 2, 000/- Rs, 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,55,989/- Rs. 3,07,989/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since the accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2007, the interest granted at 7.5% by the Tribunal stands confirmed. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as follows: i. The award amount is reduced to Rs.3,07,989/- from Rs.3,55,989/- ii. The rate of interest at 7.5% granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. iii. . Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount after settling the claimant. iv. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. v. No costs. PAL Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Addl.Dist.Judge, Krishnagiri at Dharmapuri District + 1 cc to Mr. J. Chandran, Advocate SR No.70901 + 1 cc to Mr. P. Arivudainambi, Advocate SR No. 71089 CMA No. 1811 of 2008 VSV(CO) SR/28.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/