IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.3.2009 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.630 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division-I, Ramakrishna Main Road, Salem-7. ... Appellant/Respondent vs. Manasheh. ... Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 25.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem. For appellant : Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi ----- JUDGMENT The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 25.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem. 2. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 11.1.2004. The injured claimant Manasheh, aged 49 years, a Pastor, was travelling in the appellant transport corporation bus. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the bus hit the parked trailer lorry. In that accident, the said Manasheh sustained head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. He was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first treated at C.M. Hospital, Namakkal and then at Vidhya Hospital, Salem from 11.1.2004 to 12.1.2004. Thereafter, he was treated in Pushpam General Hospital from 17.1.2004 to 9.2.2004 as per Ex.A-1. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for the injury suffered in the accident. 3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Chellanathan, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.A-1 is the true copy of FIR dated 11.1.2004, Ex.A-2 series are the medical receipts, Ex.A-3 series are the medical bills for Rs.31,177/-, Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary, Ex.A-5 is the ECG report dated 12.1.2004, Ex.A-6 is the lab reports dated 13.1.2004, Exs.A-7 and A-9 are the X-Rays, Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate dated 16.2.2008 and Ex.A-10 is the copy of accident register and discharge summary. On behalf of the appellant transport corporation, Mr.S.Muthusamy, the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked on behalf of the appellant transport corporation. 4. The Tribunal discussed the negligence and held that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus based on Ex.A-1 FIR and the oral evidence of the injured claimant. There is no material to controvert the same. The evidence of R.W.1 did not appeal to the Tribunal on merits. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, as responsible for the accident and the injury and the liability fixed on the appellant transport corporation, cannot be and is not seriously disputed by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal and the same is confirmed. 5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, which is the only serious issue canvassed, the same was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the award in answer to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ point No.2. Based on the accident register Ex.A-10, the Tribunal fixed the age of the injured at 49 years. P.W.2 doctor assessed the disability at 60% and issued the disability certificate Ex.A-8. The Tribunal, however fixed the disability at 30%. Stating that no document was filed in proof of the income of the injured, the Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Based on the age, the Tribunal adopted multiplier 13, and fixed the loss of income of the injured claimant at Rs.58,500/- (Rs.15,000/- x 13 x 30% = Rs.58,500/-). In addition, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal also granted the following amount as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:- Sl.No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income for the disability assessed at 30% Rs. 58,500/- 2 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 4 Attender charges Rs. 5,000/- 5 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-3 Rs. 31,177/- 6 Loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence (3 months) Rs. 5,000/- 7 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,19,677/- 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the sum of Rs.58,500/- granted towards loss of income for 30% disability based on the multiplier method is not correct. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced. 7. On going through the award of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation on the above said contention for the following reasons:- (i) The accident in this case happened on 11.1.2004. The injured claimant at the time of accident was 49 years old and was working as Pastor. (ii) From the records, it is clear that the injured claimant was first treated at C.M. Hospital, Namakkal and then at Vidhya Hospital, Salem from 11.1.2004 to 12.1.2004. Thereafter, he was treated in Pushpam General Hospital from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.1.2004 to 9.2.2004 as per Ex.A-1. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant suffered grievous injuries and he issued disability certificate Ex.A-8 assessing the disability at 60%. The Tribunal, however, reduced the same to Rs.30% without any reason. (iii) The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 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. (d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is no finding by the Tribunal that by the nature of injury suffered by the injured claimant, his earning capacity and employment is totally affected. There is no finding that the disablement in this case assessed by the doctor is such that his earning capacity is lost for the rest of his life. There is no material to show that the injured claimant will be idle for the rest of his life and consequently, there will be a total loss of income. Therefore, the question of applying multiplier method in this case does not arise as the parameters of paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal, therefore, clearly is an error. (iv) The Tribunal, without any reason reduced the disability assessed at 60% by the doctor to 30%. If the disability as assessed by the doctor is taken, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reasonable. (v) The compensation granted under other heads are reasonable and the same is confirmed. (vi) Considering all the above aspects, the total compensation granted in a sum of Rs.1,19,677/- is reasonable and does not require any further reduction as also the interest granted at 7.5% as the accident in this case happened in the year 2004 and the award is of the year 2008. 8. Finding no merit, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant seeks for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and is granted and on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ts Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Salem. 2) The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi, Advocate SR No.8526 KA(CO) SR/9.4.2009 Judgment in C.M.A.No.630 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/