1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.910 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Madurai Division – I, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai – 10. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. R.Rajaram .. Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 12.12.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurai. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Royce Immanuel For Respondent .. Mr.C.Godwin JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 12.12.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurai. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the disability sustained by the petitioner, has adopted multiplier method and ultimately fixed a compensation of Rs.5,32,473/-. With regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the following grounds: (a) The petitioner has sustained only 72% permanent disability and absolutely there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner has completely lost his future earning https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 capacity, but the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously adopted multiplier method. (b) On the side of the petitioner, no reliable document has been filed so as to fix his regular monthly income. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously fixed Rs.3,000/- per mensum. 5. In order to controvert the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the petitioner has sustained six fractures and prior to accident, he served as a mechanic and due to accident, he sustained 72% permanent disability and now he is not in a position to resume his regular work and after considering the evidence given by him coupled with medical evidence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier method and therefore the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not require any interference. 6. For considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the available evidence. It is seen from the evidence that the petitioner has sustained six fractures in vital parts of his body. The Doctor, who issued Ex.P.14, Disability Certificate has been examined as P.W.2 and he narrated the nature of fractures sustained by the petitioner and cumulatively he fixed 72% permanent disability. Further he has stated in his evidence that at present the petitioner is not in a position to have steady walk and also sit. Only on the basis of the evidence given by P.W.2, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has adopted multiplier method. But P.W.2 does not say that the petitioner has completely lost his future earning capacity. Since there is no specific evidence on the part of the petitioner with regard to complete loss of future earning capacity, in the present case multiplier method cannot be adopted and compensation can be awarded only on the basis of nature of fractures sustained by the petitioner and also its quantum. 7. As stated earlier, Ex.P.14, Disability Certificate has been filed on the side of the petitioner, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained 72% permanent disability and the author of Ex.P.14 has been examined as P.W.2 and in fact he corroborated the contents of Ex.P.14. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view to award Rs.72,000/- towards disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Considering the number of fractures sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the view to give Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 55 days and subsequently he has taken bed rest. It has already been pointed out that the petitioner has sustained six fractures in vital parts of his body and therefore this Court is of the view to give Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income. On the side of the petitioner, sufficient documents have been filed so as to prove that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 spent Rs.1,87,353/- towards medical expenses and the same can be accepted. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses. It is seen from the evidence given by P.W.2 that the petitioner requires future medical treatment and under the said circumstances Rs.50,000/- can be awarded towards future medical expenses. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards extra- nourishment. Considering the quantum of disability sustained by the petitioner and also the nature of fractures sustained by him, this Court is of the view to give Rs.15,000/- towards extra-nourishment and in aggregation the respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,04,353/- by way of compensation and to that extent the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal can be allowed in part. 8. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.209 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurai is modified as follows: The respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.4,04,353/- by way of compensation. In other aspect, the award in question is confirmed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. If the appellant/respondent has deposited the entire award amount together with interest, the appellant/respondent is entitled to withdraw the excess amount with accrued interest. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurai. +One CC to M/s.Royce Emmanuel, Advocate, SR.No.34015 +One cc to M/s.C.Godwin, Advocate, SR.No.33946 smn rl/4c – 2.11.2011 C.M.A(MD)No.910 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/