IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.10.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.1749 of 2007 and M.P. Nos. 1 of 2008 and 2 of 2007 ............ National Insurance Co Ltd Branch Office Bharathiyar Memorial Buildings Avinashi Road, Tiruppur .. Appellant/ 2nd respondent Vs. 1. Mariadoss 2.S. Senniappa Gounde .. Respondents/ petitioner/ first respondent (2nd Respondent exparte before court below and notice dispensed with) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 14.12.2006 in MCOP No. 1052 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. For Appellant : Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan For respondents : Mr.S.S. Swaminathan -------- JUDGMENT The National Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award and decree dated 14.12.2006 in MCOP No. 1052 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case happened on 4.5.2002 at 5.45 p.m. The injured claimant Mariadoss, said to be 58 years old, working as O.A. in L.I.C., was riding a motor cycle when he was hit by a car insured with the appellant. In that accident, he suffered fracture of the right leg, right shoulder,injury to the right side of the head and other parts of the body. He was treated at P.S.G. Hospital, Coimbatore from 4.5.2002 to 1.6.2002. He claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation stating that his income is Rs.16,159/- p.m. 3. In support of the claim petition, the claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr. Senthilkumar was examined as P.W.2 and one Rajagopal was examined as P.W.3. Documents Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, documents Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the car insured with the appellant, which caused the accident and the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and such finding is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. 6. In this case, the disability has been assessed at 53% under Ex.A8 by the Doctor-P.W.2. The quantum of compensation was decided by the Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the award in answer to point No.2. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,05,300/- towards medical expenses as per the medical bills produced before the Tribunal. The income of the injured claimant was fixed as Rs.8,000/- by rejecting Ex.A10 wherein the claimant stated that his income is Rs.16,169/- p.m. The Tribunal based on the disability at 53% and considering the injuries, occupation, age etc., by adopting 8 multiplier, determined the loss of earning power in sum of Rs.3,07,200/- (Rs.8000/- x 12 x 8 = Rs.3,07,200/-). In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning power Rs.3,07,200/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 3 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.1,05,300/- 5 Extra nourishment and damage to articles Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs.4,25,500/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the injured claimant in this case was almost in the verge of retirement and therefore, the question of loss of earning capacity does not arise. If at all, the claimant will be entitled to a reasonable compensation for disability, pain and suffering, transport and medical expenses, extra nourishment, attender charges, loss of amenities etc. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who stated that in the event of Court not agreeing to grant compensation based on multiplier method, the compensation for pain and suffering, transport expenses, extra nourishment, attender charges and loss of amenities has to be granted. He also stated that the injured claimant was in hospital for a period of 25 days and also needed future medical expenses for physiotherapy till he recovers from the injuries suffered. 9. In this case, the injured claimant was working as an office assistant in L.I.C. as stated above, he was at the verge of retirement at the time of the accident. The nature of injuries do not show that he is immobilized for the rest of his life time. The 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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." 10. The question of adopting multiplier method for determining the loss of earning power does not arise in this case. One other factor which is relevant to this case is that the accident happened on 4.5.2002 and the claimant was due to retire from service on 30.6.2002. Therefore, he had admittedly had only two months time to retire from service at the time of the accident. The Tribunal was not justified in adopting the multiplier method to grant compensation for the disability in terms of the parameters set out in Veluchamy's case. Therefore, the sum of Rs.3,07,200/- granted by the Tribunal based on multiplier method cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. However, the claimant is entitled to compensation on other heads. The claimant was in hospital for quiet some time and the nature of injuries show that he needs adequate nutrition, physiotherapy. He will need to be taken care during treatment and thereafter. The claimant is entitled to adequate compensation for transport expenses and future medical expenses. Therefore, the award stands modified as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Permanent disability at 53% -- - Rs. 80,000/- 2 Loss of earning power Rs.3,07,200/ - --- 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs.1,05,300/ - Rs.1,05,300/ - 6 Extra nourishment and damage to articles Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7 Attender charges -- - Rs. 7,500/- 8 Loss of amenities -- - Rs. 10,000/- 9 Future medical expenses -- - Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.4,25,500/ - Rs.2,72,800/ - 11. Since the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2006, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.2,72,800/- from Rs.4,25,500/-. (ii) The interest at 7.5% is confirmed. (iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs. (v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. +1cc to Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Sr 60701 +1cc to Mr.S.S.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr 60262 JSV (CO) km/18.12. CMA No. 1749 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/