IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-10-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No. 2902 of 2011 M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Cuddalore. ... Appellant /Respondent II -Vs- 1.Ariyamala .. Respondent I/Petitioner 2.Premapriya ... Respondent II/Respondent II Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No. 1043 of 2005, dated 26.10.2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. For Appellant :: Mr.J.Chandran For Respondents:: No Appearance JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has come forward with this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the grant of award of Rs.2,05,000/- to the first respondent, a lady, who sustained fracture of tibia bone on the left leg, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore District, in M.C.O.P.No. 1043 of 2005, dated 26.10.2007. 2. In this case, 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. J.Chandran, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly contended that the lower Court has simply taken Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income, without any document and applied the multiplier theory method for the 40% disability sustained by her and awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- under the head 'permanent disability', which is exorbitant and under other heads also, the compensation amount is awarded and aggrieved against the same, the Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Though, notice was duly served on the respondents, none appeared for them and hence, their names were directed to be printed in the cause list. Even today (19.10.2011), inspite of their names printed in the cause list, none appear for the respondents. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is taken up and on merits, orders are passed. 5. As rightly pointed out, the accident is admitted and the liability is also admitted, but the quantum alone is questioned. Here is the case, where the Claimant has sustained fracture of tibia bone on the left leg and she has been hospitalized for only one day and thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital and there is no evidence for further treatment. The Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2, has assessed the disability at 40% and issued a disability certificate (Ex.P.7). Even if the 40% disability is taken into consideration, the question of adoption of multiplier method will not arise, as there is no evidence regarding the functional disability. Merely because, she was admitted in the hospital for one day and the Doctor-P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that she will not be able to walk freely, that cannot be a reason to grant compensation by applying the multiplier theory. When there is no specific evidence that her future prospectus is totally lost or there is any functional disability, the compensation amount awarded by applying the multiplier method cannot be accepted, at best as per the judgment of the Division Bench, a maximum of Rs.2,000/- alone could be awarded per percentage of the disability and taking into consideration the disability at 40%, as assessed by the Doctor, at best, she could be awarded only a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 40) under the head 'permanent disability'. Insofar as the compensation amount awarded under other heads i.e., Future Medical Expenses – Rs.5,000; Extra- Nourishment – Rs.5,000/-; Transport Expenses – Rs.2,500/-; Attender charges – Rs.2500/-; Pain and Sufferings, Shock and Mental Agony – Rs.10,000/- are concerned, it is reasonable and fair and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Thus, totally, the Claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-, as against the award of Rs.2,05,000/- passed by the Court below. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.1,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court at the time of granting interim stay, the Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the accrued interest before the Tribunal. He would also contend that pursuant to the E.P. filed, the Claimant has already withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the balance amount, whatever is still lying to the credit of E.P. or M.C.O.P.No.1043 of 2005 on the file of the the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore and the appellant-Insurance Company is also entitled to recover whatever the excess amount already withdrawn by the Claimant. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No. 1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Paa To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 1 CC to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, SR.63945 C.M.A.No.2902 of 2011 MG(CO) SRA(9/12/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/