IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.Nos. 3324 of 2006 and 1018 of 2007 and M.P. Nos. 2 of 2006 & 2 of 2007 C.M.A.No.3324 of 2006:- National Insurance Co.Ltd. No.57, Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai ... Appellant/3rd Respondent -Vs- 1. P. Pazhaniswamy 2. P. Maraswamy 3. S. Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents/Claimant & Respondents 1&2 C.M.A.No.1018 of 2007 :- National Insurance Co.Ltd. No.57, Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai ... Appellant/3rd Respondent -Vs- 1. S. Yuvaraj 2. P. Maraswamy 3. S. Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents/Claimant & Respondents 1&2 C.M.A.No.3324 of 2006:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 337 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court Judge), Bhavani, Erode District. C.M.A.No.1018 of 2007 :- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No. 344 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court Judge), Bhavani, Erode District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant :: Mr.N. B. Surekha In both CMAs For Respondents:: Mr.C. Kulanthaivelu for R.1 In both CMAs Mr. N. Manoharan for R.2 No Appearance for R.3 COMMON JUDGMENT Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and since common evidence has been let in against the judgments dated 28.04.2005 and 29.04.2005 passed by the learned Sub Court Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavani, Erode in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos. 337 and 344 of 2003, both the aggrieved parties have filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and they are taken up together for disposal. 2. In these cases, the accident is admitted and the liability is also admitted, but, the quantum alone is questioned. 3. Even, insofar as the quantum is concerned, Mr.N.B. Surekha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company mainly submitted that the lower Court has adopted the multiplier theory in respect of the injuries caused and that too only for small injuries. Hence, has come forward with these appeals. 4. Mr.C. Kulandaivelu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in both the appeals contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and correct and it warrants no interference. 5. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeals itself are taken up for final disposal. 6. As in both the appeals, the liability is admitted and the accident is also admitted, but, only the quantum alone is questioned, we have to analyse each case by the injuries caused. As far as C.M.A. No.1018 of 2007 is concerned, there is a fracture of the right fore-arm, the Doctor has certified 40% disability, he is a power-loom worker, after the accident he is unable to turn his wrist and work as before. But, that cannot be the reason to adopt multiplier theory when this is not a case where the injured cannot work at all. Here he continues to work. As rightly contended the adoption of multiplier theory could not have been done by the court below. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, I am at a loss to find as to how the Court below can come to the conclusion that there is a total disability and applied the multiplier method in this case. It is rather unfortunate for the lower Court to adopt multiplier theory, where it is not warranted, especially in the case of injury. Therefore, this Court finds it necessary to interfere with the order of the Court below, when it exceeded its limit in awarding the compensation by adopting the multiplier theory in the case of injury. As per the judgment of the Division Bench, Rs.2,000/- could be awarded per percentage of the disability and taking into consideration the disability at 40% as evidenced by the Doctor and accepted by the Court below, at best, he could be awarded a sum of Rs.2,000 x 40 = Rs.80,000/- under the head of 'permanent disability' as against the award of Rs.1,15,200/-. As far as other heads are concerned, it is very reasonable and correct and hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere in so far as it relates to the compensation on other heads. 7. Thus, C.M.A.No.1018 of 2007 is allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.1,48,480/- to Rs.1,13,280/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 8. Similarly, in C.M.A. NO.3324 of 2006, the claimant has suffered fracture on his right leg tibia, he undertook treatment for more than one month as an in-patient and the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2 has categorically deposed that the Claimant sustained disability at 40%. The lower Court having accepted the 40% disability, calculated the compensation amount to be awarded under the head 'permanent disability' by applying the multiplier theory method, which is not correct, because, there is no evidence to show that there is a functional disability. As per the Division Bench judgment a sum of Rs.2,000/- could be awarded per percentage of disability and for 40% disability, a maximum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 80) could be awarded and the same is awarded as against Rs.1,15,200/- as awarded by the court below. Since the amount awarded against the other heads are reasonable and correct, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, C.M.A.No.3324 of 2006 is allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.1,52,910/- to Rs.1,17,710/-. As far as interest is concerned, since the accident is of the year 2005, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the award amount is modified and reduced. In C.M.A.No.1018 of 2007, the compensation is reduced from Rs.1,48,480/- to Rs.1,13,280/-. In C.M.A.No.3324 of 2006 the compensation is reduced from Rs.1,52,910/- to Rs.1,17,710/-. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos. 2 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2006 and 2 of 2007 are closed. Since, the entire award amount is deposited before the Tribunal, the Claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with the accrued interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the excess amount i.e., over and above the amount awarded by this court. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Avr To The Sub Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bhavani, Erode. + 2 ccs to Mr.C.Kulanthaivel, SR.75117, 75118 + 2 ccs to M/s. N.B. Surekha , SR.75043, 75044 + 2 ccs to Mr.N.Manokar, Sr.75598, 75599 C.M.A.Nos. 3324 of 2006 and 1018 of 2007 and M.P. Nos. 2 of 2006 & 2 of 2007 CK(CO) eu 3.02.12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/