IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2377 OF 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 National Insurance Co.Ltd. Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Versus 1.Subramanian 2.Narasimulu .. Respondents/Petitioner & Ist Respondent Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act 1988 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel For Respondents : Mr.C.Munusamy (R-1) Mr.C & K.Law firm(R2) J U D G M E N T The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 03.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge Cuddalore. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows:- On 22.08.2005, at about 02.00 p.m., the petitioner was walking on the Vridhachalam Main Road, at that time, a car bearing Registration No.TN-01-Y-8159, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the back of the petitioner. In the result, he had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he had filed the claim petition for compensation a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest against the respondents. 3.The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent stated that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the car, who had observed all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ traffic rules, while he was driving the car. The driver was not possessing a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not covered by valid records. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent denied the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and the age, income and occupation of the claimant. Besides, the claim amount is an excessive one. 4.On the averments of both the parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Who was responsible for the said accident? (ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as PW1 and the doctor was examined as PW2. Ten documents were marked viz., F.I.R. Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Wound Certificate, Medical Bills, Disability Certificate, Salary Certificate, X-ray and Driving Licence etc. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documentary evidence was given. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 22.08.2005, at around 02.00 p.m., when he was walking on the Vridhachalam Main Road, the respondent's car bearing Registration No.TN-01-Y-8159, came at high speed and dashed against him. He further adduced evidence that he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore for preliminary treatment, thereafter, he was referred to the Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore for better treatment. He further stated that at the time of accident, his age was 35 years and that he was a driver by profession. He had spent a sum of Rs.36,790/- towards medical expenses. PW2, the doctor had examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 45%. He further stated that the claimant's right leg fibia and fibula bones were fractured and mal-united. The claimant had undergone a surgical operation and a steel rod with screws were fixed in the operated area. The muscle had become thickened in the area 10 to 15 cm below the knee. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,86,290/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,500/- under the head of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'loss of income due to disability', this amount has been awarded after adopting multiplier method, which is not pertinent in this case, since the claimant's avocation has not been affected. The learned counsel further argued that the doctor had assessed the disability at 45%, which is on the higher side. 10.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had undergone a surgical operation on his right leg and a steel rod with screws were fixed in the operated area. The claimant, being a driver, is unable to drive the motor vehicle after the accident. As such, he is unable to perform his duty as a driver. Therefore, the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier method. Award granted under the heads of transport, nutrition, attender charges, pain and suffering and future medical expenses are all on the lower side. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal's adoption of multiplier method in awarding a compensation of Rs.2,29,500/- under the head of 'loss of income due to disability' is incorrect. Hence, this Court assesses the compensation as under:- Rs.90,000/- towards loss of income due to disability; Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses; Rs.36,790/- for medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards transport; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,500/- towards nutrition; Rs.2,500/- for attender charges; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during medical treatment period and convalescent period. In total, this Court awards a sum of Rs.1,86,790/- as compensation, as this is found to be fair and equitable. Therefore, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.2,86,290/- to Rs.1,86,790/-. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 12.On 04.08.2008, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / National Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- together with proportionate interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount a sum of Rs.1,86,790/- with accrued interest lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, after filing a Memo along with this order. Likewise, the appellant / National Insurance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess compensation amount lying the credit of M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, after observing necessary formalities of the Court below. 13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddlore, made in M.C.O.P.No.286 of 2006, dated 03.04.2008 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar r n s To 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai-104. 1 cc to Mr. C & K Law Firm, Advocate, Sr.No.25898 1 cc to Mr. S.Vadivel, Advocate, Sr.No.25651 C.M.A.NO.2377 OF 2008 gv(co) pmk.11.7.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/