IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.11.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 3592 of 2008 and M.P.No. 1 of 2008 ....... The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, (Villupuram Division II), Vellore.9. .. Appellant/ Respondent Vs. Vedi .. Respondent/ Petitioner Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 2.7.2007 made in MCOP No. 10 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Principal Sub Judge) Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant : Mr. V. Ramesh JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated dated 2.7.2007 made in MCOP No. 10 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Principal Sub Judge) Tiruvannamalai. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 17.8.2002. One Vedi, S/o Kadirvel, aged about 31 years, a coolie, was riding a cycle when he was hit by the appellant transport corporation bus driven in a rash and negligent manner. In that accident, he suffered fracture of both bone of the right fore arm. He was treated at the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. Stating that his income was Rs.3,000/- p.m., the injured claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 3. In support of the claim petition, the claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr. Raveendran was examined as P.W.2. Documents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exs. P1 to P5 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate issued by the Governemt District Head Quarters Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. Ex.P4 is the disability certificate. Ex.P5 is the x-ray report. One Nedunchezhian, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The finding of negligence and the liability of the appellant to compensate the claimant is not in dispute and the same is confirmed. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. As far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal decided the same in paragraph 7 of the award in answer to point No.2. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate given by the Government Hospital, Chennai. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate given by the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. There are five injuries. Injury No.3 is fracture of both bones of right fore arm. The disability has been assessed at 30%. The Court fixed the disability at 10% on the ground that the bones had properly fused and the wounds healed. 6. Considering the age of the injured claimant and also taking into consideration the injuries suffered as per Exs. P2 and P3, the Tribunal fixing the annual income at Rs.24,000/- and by adopting multiplier of 16, and for the disability assessed at 30% , granted a sum of Rs.38,400/- as future damages. In addition, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Future damages Rs. 38,400/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 3 Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 4 Attender charges and loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 53,400/- 7. A plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier method in a case of injury. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. The injured claimant, in this case is a coolie. There is a fracture of both bones of right fore arm. Even after treatment, there will be a limitation in his capacity to work as before. He has been treated at two hospitals viz., one at Government General Hospital, Chennai and the other at Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai. 9. The following decisions will have to be kept in mind while fixing the income of the deceased:- (a) A Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) observed that a coolie would earn Rs.100/- per day. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1995. (b) The Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly, was of the view that an agriculturist would earn Rs.3,000/- per month. In that case, the accident happened in the year 1999. 10. In the above cited cases, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.3,000/- per month for the year 1995 and 1999 respectively, whereas in the present case, the accident happened in the year 2003. Considering the same, the income should have been fixed marginally higher than the amount fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.3,000/- p.m. 11. In this case, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be justified. However, the claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the disability assessed at 30%. He is also entitled to enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, attender charges, loss of income during the period of treatment and extra nourishment. Considering all these aspects, the compensation of Rs.53,400/- granted by the Tribunal does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% p.a. as the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award passed in the year 2007. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. 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 amount as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Principal Sub Judge), Tiruvannamalai. + 1 CC To Mr.V.Ramesh, Advocate SR NO.65592 CMA No. 3592 of 2008 CK {CO} TP/23.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/