IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.3548 of 2011 And M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Veeran Alagamuthukone Transport) (Kumbakonam Division) (Pudukootai City Branch) Thirumayam Road, Pudukkotai. ... Appellant vs. Deivanai ... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.221 of 2008 dated 14.12.2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. For appellant : Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi JUDGMENT The appellant-Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has come forward with this appeal as against the grant of an award of Rs.7,73,707/- in M.C.O.P.No.221 of 2008 dated 14.12.2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 2.The Accident is admitted, liability is admitted. Only the quantum is questioned in this appeal. The claimant sustained multiple fracture in the spinal cord and she is totally bed-ridden. Though the Doctor certified 95% disability, the lower court has taken 90% disability. The lower court has adopted the multiplier method and adopted the multiplier of 18 for granting compensation. Aggrieved against the adoption of multiplier method, the appellant has come forward with this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.When at the time of admission, specific question was posed whether the lady will be able to do anything further after the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the evidence of P.W.2, Doctor who has categorically stated that the claimant is totally bed-ridden. Her spinal cord is fractured. In view of the total bed-riddeness, she has also developed bedsore and she is unable to even move for attending the natures calls. Even her urine has been taken only by tube continuously and as she being just 28 years is totally bed-ridden, it is absolutely not possible for her to earn any income. Infact she is also having the assistance of an attender throughout and without the attender she cannot even change her position. That being the case, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant should not have been granted compensation under the multiplier method cannot be correct. 4.Further, in this case, the Doctor has clearly certified 95% disability. Since the claimant's movements are totally nil, the lower court has adopted the multiplier method, but of-course taken 90% disability and not 95% disability. Even in respect of income, the lower court has only taken Rs.3,000/- which is the minimum income and as far as the multiplier method is concerned has adopted the multiplier of 18 which is the correct multiplier. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the court below especially on the ground that multiplier theory should not have been adopted. 5.This is a case where there is total functional disability. The person is unable to move from the bed even though the accident took place in the year 2006 even at the time of evidence in the year 2010. Under those circumstances, this is a fittest case where the court has rightly come to the conclusion that multiplier method could be adopted. In other respects also, the amount awarded by the court below is fair, reasonable and correct. 6.Evidence also has been clearly let in that the claimant was a coolie and contract worker and she was earning around Rs.5,000/- per month and in view of the accident, she has sustained severe fracture in the neck as well as in the spinal cord and she has taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Pudukkotai and Tanjore Medical College Hospital and she was also an in-patient for a period of 30 days and thereafter, she was totally bed-ridden and she is unable to get up from the bed and walk and the Doctor also has certified 95% disability and let in evidence that in view of the spinal cord injury, she was paralysed and both her legs are unable to be moved. Therefore, she is in a bed-ridden stage. 7.Hence, the award granted by the lower court adopting the multiplier method is fair, reasonable and just. The appellant is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. 8.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To 1.The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 1 cc To M/s.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.75990 C.M.A.No.3548 of 2011 And M.P.No.1 of 2011 TS(CO) RH (9.1.12) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/