IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:21.11. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3574 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Metropolitan Transport Corporation, rep. By its Managing Director, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai .. Appellant Vs. Panneerselvam @ Panneerdoss .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 23.01.2008 in MCOP No.234 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.IV.),Poonamallee. . . . For Appellant : Mr. M.Deivanandam For respondent : .. . . . . JUDGMENT The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 23.01.2008 in MCOP No.234 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.IV.),Poonamallee. 2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 08.02.2006. The injured claimant Panneerselvam @ Panneerdoss, aged about 27 years said to be working as a Mason, was walking on the side of the road when he was hit by the appellant Transport Corporation Bus driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. In that accident he suffered multiple injuries as the right side wheel of the bus ran over his right leg. He was admitted to the Government General hospital on 16.02.2006 and he was treated there for two months as inpatient. Surgical procedures were done on 20.03.06 and the left leg https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ below knee was amputated. After amputation he was discharged on 01.04.2006. The details are mentioned in Ex.P.2, copy of the accident register, as follows: "D.O.A. : 16.02.2006 D.O.S : 20.03.2006 D.O.D : 10.04.2006 Diagnosis :Crush injury Treatment BK Amputation L/E Left BK Stump: Guillotine amputation stump wound infected slaugh ++" 3. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimant stating that his income was Rs.4,500/- per month. He pleaded that he was unable to work as Mason due to the amputation of the left leg below knee. 4. In support of the claim, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.Subramaniam was examined as P.W.2. Documents were marked as EXs.P.1 to P.6. Ex.P.1 is the photo copy of First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the photo copy of Accident Register. Ex.P.3 is the Discharge summary. Ex.P.4 is the photo copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Ex.P.5 is the photo copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is the Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondent/appellant, one Kasi, conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and one Murugesan, Investigator of the accident was examined as P.W.2. No document was marked on the side of the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal. 5. Based on the First Information Report Ex.P.1 and the charge sheet Ex.P.5 which were filed as against the driver of the appellant Transport Corporation Bus and also based on the evidence of the claimant, who has stated that it was the bus which came and hit against the claimant and ran over his leg, the Tribunal rejected the evidence of the conductor R.W.1, Investigator R.W.2. and came to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus. It is relevant to note that the driver of the bus was not examined and no sketch was marked. There is no other material to come to a different conclusion other than that has been arrived by the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the liability fixed on the appellant Transport Corporation is confirmed. 6. As far as compensation is concerned, the fact remains that the injured claimant has suffered amputation of the left leg below the knee. He claimed that his income was Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal, however, fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. stating that he has not proved his income of Rs.4,500/- Taking into consideration the disability assessed at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 65% under Ex.P.6, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 13 and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.3,04,200/- and also on conventional heads, in the following manner with interest at 7.5 % and penal interest at 9%. Sl.No . Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning power Rs. 3,04,200/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- 3. Mental agony Rs. 15,000/- 4 Medical, transport,extra nourishment and other incidental medical charges Rs. 5,800/- Total Rs 3,40,000 7. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal and the disability assessed at 65% are on the higher side and therefore, the compensation has to be reduced. He stated that the penal interest has to be set aside. 8. On going through the findings of the Tribunal, considering the nature of injury suffered, age, occupation and income of the injured claimant, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation for the following reasons. a. The accident in this case happened in the year 2006 and the injured claimant is a Mason aged about 27 years. He suffered grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg below the knee. b. Doctor has assessed the disability at 65% The income of the injured claimant was stated to be Rs.4,500/-p.m. But, the Tribunal, however, fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. c. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal is justified in determining the compensation and loss of earning power based on the multiplier in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483. In Para 11 of the decision reads thus:- "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (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." In this case, even assuming the multiplier of 13 is disputed as marginally higher, the fact remains that the injured claimant suffered the accident in the year 2006 and the income claimed at Rs.4,500/- appears to be reasonable and justified in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in B.Anandhi – vs. - Latha reported in 2002 ACJ 233(P.SATHASIVAM,J., as he then was) and the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and another – vs. - Jasbir Kaur and others reported in 2004-1 Law Weekly. d) Since the accident happened in the year 2006, the income of the injured claimant can be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. If the income is increased as above and the multiplier is reduced, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, the compensation will be much higher than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Further meagre amount has been granted for pain and suffering and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for medical expenses, transport expenses and also for extra nourishment. No amount has been granted for attendant charges. The claimant is entitled to some amount on the head of replacement of artificial leg, in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of (Nagappa – vs. - Gurudayal Singh and others) reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274.=2003 ACJ 12. The Apex Court held in para 29 as follows:- "In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, it has been pointed out that for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, the appellant would be required to have some sort of operation and also change the artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expenses for this were Rs 18,000 and the High Court has awarded the said amount. For change of the artificial leg every two or three years no compensation is awarded. Considering this aspect, if Rs one lakh is awarded as an additional compensation, the appellant would be in a position to meet the said expenses from the interest of the said amount. Equally, it is true that the said amount is required to be properly invested on a long-term basis so that recurring medical expenses could be met. This principle is established in General Manager Vs Susamma Thomas ." Hence, the total compensation is reasonable. 9. The interest at 7.5% is justified as the accident happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2008. Therefore, the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest is justified and the award does not require any further reduction. 10. The next contention that has to be considered is whether the Tribunal is justified in granting 9% penal interest. There is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act to grant penal interest. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding penal interest, since it is contrary to the Statutory provisions, this Court is of the view that no notice need be sent to the claimant for the purpose of determining this issue. Under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances, the 9% penal interest granted by the Tribunal is set aside. The claimant, however, will be entitled to receive the award amount as per the order of the Tribunal along with interest 7.5 % only. 11. Finding no merits, the quantum of compensation is confirmed. The appeal is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to deposit the entire award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as per the order of the Tribunal. PAL Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.IV. Poonamallee. • 1 cc to Mr. M. Devanandam, Advocate SR No.65113 CMA No. 3574 of 2008 RS(CO) SR/10.2.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/