IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04.12. 2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 3764 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited., Parimalam Complex, 2nd floor, Mettur Road, Erode .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. L.Devaraj 2. Balaslubramaniam 3. P.Natesan 4. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,Gobi .. Respondents/Claimant and Respondents 1, 3 & 4 . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 14.12.2005 in MCOP No. 362 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,(Principal Sub Court) Gobichettipalayam. . . . For Appellant : Mr.T.M.Venkaraman For Respondent-1 : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan . . . JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 14.12.2005 in MCOP No. 362 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court) Gobichettipalayam. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident, in this case happened on 10.01.1999. The injured claimant Devaraj, aged 21 years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and a student, was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-36-Z-6834 insured with the appellant. The said vehicle was hit by another motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-36-Z-3938. In that accident, the claimant Devaraj sustained fracture to the head, injury on the eye and other superficial injuries. He was treated in the Government Hospital at Sathur and thereafter in Ramakrishna hospital at Coimbatore. He claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.3 is the bus ticket. Ex.P.4 is the Disability Certificate. ExP.5 is the X-Ray. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The negligence, in this case was fixed by the Tribunal, on the driver of the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant. Since the policy covers the claim, consequent to the negligence fixed on the driver of the two wheeler, insured with the appellant, the liability is fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimant and the same is not seriously challenged by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal. 5. The only contention that is seriously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is on the quantum of compensation. In support of the claim for compensation, Exs.P.9 to P.18 are relevant. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of doctor and Ex.P.17, fixed the disability at 20% and by applying the multiplier method granted compensation on the head of pecuniary loss due to the disability in the following manner. Rs. 3000/ 20/100 X 12 = Rs.7,200/- X 16= Rs.1,15,200/- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income Rs. 1,15,200/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 34,000/- 3 Pain and Suffering Rs. 6,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 1,60,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the appeal, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that since the injured claimant is a student and the disability assessed at 20%, there is no basis for the Tribunal to adopt multiplier method. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, stated that consequent to the injuries, he has undergone treatment in two hospitals and there is a fracture in the head. Therefore, just compensation should have been given for extra nourishment, whereas a meagre amount has been granted on this head to the young injured claimant. No amount has been granted for attendant charges and transport expenses. He pleaded for suitable compensation for the disability assessed at 20%, considering the difficulty that the claimant would face in future studies consequent to the injuries. 7. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." 8. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that by the nature of injuries suffered, the earning capacity of the injured claimant to earn has been totally affected. The multiplier method adopted in this case is not justified. Further, after the treatment given in the year 2002, there is no medical records to show further treatment. Therefore, it is clear that the injured claimant has recovered, though not fully. There is no permanent disablement to affect the earning capacity to adopt the multiplier method. The present case does not fall within the parameter of the decision of the Division Bench cited above for application of multiplier. The claimant will be further entitled to suitable compensation for the disability assessed and enhanced compensation for pain and suffering, for extra nourishment, transport expenses and for attendant charges etc. 9. In view of the above, the compensation granted by the Tribunal for loss of income in a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- based on multiplier method is set aside. The claimant will be entitled to compensation as follows: Sl.No. Head Amount granted by this Court 1 For 20% permanent disability Rs. 35,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 34,000/- 3. Pain and Suffering Rs. 20,000/- 4. Extra Nourishment Rs. 7,500/- 5 Transport Expenses Rs. 7,500/- 6 Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/- Total rounded off to Rs.1,10,000/- Rs.1,09,000/- Interest at the rate of 6% p.a granted by the Tribunal is confirmed as no appeal has been filed by the Claimant. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed as follows: i)The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,10,000/- from Rs.1,60,200/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% is confirmed. iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire amount and is granted. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court. iv) Excess amount in deposit, if any, will be withdrawn by the appellant. v. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. vi) No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. + 1 CC To Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate SR NO.68169 + 1 CC To Mr.K.S.Narasimhan,Advocate SR NO.68173 CMA No. 3764 of 2008 CK {CO} TP/12.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/