IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.08.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 1343 of 2007 and C.M.P. No. 1756 of 2007 The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co Ltd No.13-A, Nethaji Road Cuddalore .. Appellant Versus 1. Velmurugan 2. Kanchana .. Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 11.08.2005 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1743 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr. P.S. Ganesh For Respondents : Mr. R. Sreedhar for R1 R2 set exparte JUDGMENT The Insurance company has come forward with this appeal as against the award of Rs.2,78,635/- as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by the claimant/first respondent herein. 2. The facts of the case was that on 26.06.2003, at 10.35 am, when the claimant was discharging his duties as conductor in the bus bearing Registration No. TN-31-E-2929, which was stationary in the cuddalore bus stand, the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No. PY-01-T-4242 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus in which the claimant was working as Conductor. In the impact, the claimant sustained fracture in his right clavicle, grevious injury in his left ear lobe, chest, right hand, head and multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Valli Vilas hospital, Cuddalore where he was admitted as an inpatient. Under those circumstances, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. Before the Court below, the claimant himself examined as PW1 besides Dr. Venugopal as PW2 and Exs. P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company no documentary evidence was marked or witnesses examined. The Court below, taking into consideration of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence available on record awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,635/- to the claimant/first respondent which is questioned in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company is not questioning the date, time and manner in which the accident occurred as also the liability, but only the quantum is disputed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court below, in a case of injury, has adopted multiplier theorey by taking into account the monthly salary of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- and the disability at 40% arrived at a sum of Rs.1,2000/- as loss of income per month and by applying multiplier '17' awarded a sum of Rs.14,400 X 17 = Rs.2,44,800/- towards loss of income which is exorbitant and illegal. In other respects, the amount of compensation awarded by the court below is not questioned by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant/first respondent herein contended that at the time of accident, the claimant aged 23 years and due to the accident, he could not attend to his work as before. The Doctor, PW2 in his evidence has deposed that he had assessed the extent of disability of the claimant at 40%. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, age of the claimant and his monthly salary, the court below has rightly awarded the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the award passed by the Court below is excessive and it is liable to be interfered with. 7. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below erred in applying multiplier theory in a caseof injury which is legally impermissible. It is seen from the evidence of PW2, Doctor that he had issued the disability at 40% in favour of the claimant, but there is no evidence on record that because of the accident, the claimant could not attend to his work as before or what exactly is the difficulty which the claimant is made to suffer out of the accident. In fact, the claimant is continuing his profession as a Conductor in the bus. He has not lost his employment or he is in any way affected by reason of the accident. 8. As far as the award of compensation towards loss of income is concerned, as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court as well as the catena of decisions rendered by Honourable Supreme Court, in a case of injury, for arriving at compensation, multiplier method need not be applied and if at all, a sum of Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- can be granted towards per percentage of disability. Applying this yardstick, the claimant is at best entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and accordingly, the amount of Rs.2,44,800/- arrived at by the Court below is set aside and the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards disability. Inasmuch as the amount awarded under other heads is not questioned by the appellant, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation awarded by the court below from Rs.2,78,635/- to Rs.1,13,835.00 as mentined below:- Disability 40% X Rs.2000_ Rs.80,000.00 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000.00 Transportation charges Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses Rs. 2,835.00 --------------------- Rs.1,13,835.00 -------------------- 10. It is brought to the notice that the Court below has granted interest at the rate of 9%. Since the accident took place after 2000 and inasmuch as this Court consistently granted interest only at 7.5% per annum in respect of the accident that took place after the year 2000, the interest amount awarded by the court below is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. It is stated that the insurance company has deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In view of the reduction in the compensation amount, the insurance company is permitted to deposit the balance sum with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rsh To The Principal Subordinate Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cuddalore +1cc to M/s.M.Shakkira Banu, Advocate Sr 58584 +1cc to Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan, ADvocate Sr 58523 MDR(CO) km/21.12. CMA No. 1343 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/