1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.M.A.NO.2878 of 2007 and Cross Objection No.172 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Divisional Manager The New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.1, Officers Lane, Vellore ... Appellant in C.M.A.No.2878 of 2007 and Ist respondent in Cross Objection No.172/2011 Vs. 1.Farook ... Ist Respondent in C.M.A.No.2878 of 2007 and Cross Appellant in Cross Objection No.172/2011 2.Saravanan ... 2nd respondent in Both appeal Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the decree and judgment dated 28.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Thiruvannamalai. 2 Prayer: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C, against the award dated 28.2.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.36 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Thiruvannamalai. For Appellant : Mr.Vinod (Appellant in CMA.No.2878/2011 and Ist respondent in Cross Objection No.172 of 2011) For Respondent : Mr.Terry Chellaraja (Ist respondent in CMA.No. 2878/2011 and appellant in Cross Obj. No.172 of 2011) COMMON JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.3,62,800/-, for the injury sustained by the Ist respondent/claimant, in the accident, which occurred on 17.05.2002. The claimant also filed Cross Objection for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant. 3. A perusal of the records would show that the claimant sustained degloving injury in his right elbow, fracture in right medial 3 epicondyl with procantere fracture and loss of two teeth. Based on medical records, namely, Ex.P2, P4, P5, P7 and P8, the Tribunal rightly determined the disability at 55%. As there was a fracture and also loss of tissues in the joint, it causes disfigurement. Since the respondent/claimant is 18 years and a Cooly, in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal rightly determined the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. Though the monthly income was rightly determined, multiplier 16 was applied, determined the loss of income. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1, the appropriate multiplier is 18. The monthly income is determined as follows: 3,000/- x 12 x 55% x 100 x 18 = 3,56,400/- 4. The award of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation is too meager and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, for extra- nourishment Rs.20,000/- is awarded enhancing from Rs.2,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards attender charges is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The claimant was hospitalized for 26 days, for loss of amenities a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded. A sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. For future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Thus, the 4 award amount of 3,62,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,86,400/- rounded to Rs.5,00,000/-. The rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal and the costs remains unaltered. 5. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. The Cross Objection filed by the first respondent/claimant is partly allowed. No costs. 6. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount, except the amount already deposited, along with interest and costs, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount within one week. 26.02.2015 rrg Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No 5 N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. rrg To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Thiruvannamalai. C.M.A.NO.2878 of 2011 and Cross Objection No.172 of 2011 26.02.2015