IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.12.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.3538 of 2011 And M.P.No.1 of 2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Manager, No.57, Thiru.V.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32. ... Appellant/3rd Respondent vs. 1.Dr.Mylathal Chandrasekar ..Claimant 2.M.Murugan 3.K.Duraisamy 4.Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. ... Respondents(Petitioner and Respondents 1,2 & 4) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 21.07.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi. For appellant : M/s.S.Arun Kumar For respondents : Mr.K.S.Kesavan for R1 R2 to R4 - Exparte JUDGMENT The appellant-Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal as against the grant of an award of Rs.7,80,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Pollachi. 2.The accident is admitted, liability is admitted and only the quantum is questioned. Even in the quantum, the main grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the lower court has adopted the multiplier method when the injured is only a Doctor who continues https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to do her practice. Even as per the admission of the P.W.4, the Doctor who has given the disability certificate, the Doctor/ claimant continues to do her practice. Therefore, on that admission itself the adoption of multiplier method in granting compensation is wrong. Further, the income fixed by the lower court is on the basis of the income tax return filed after the accident and without any comparison to any previous income tax returns. Hence, the appeal. 3.The learned counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the Doctor has sustained severe injuries, namely, fracture in the right leg tibea, fracture in the hip. Therefore, she was immobilised. She was hospitalised for 12 days and an implantation was done. Subsequent operation is necessary for removal of the rod and future medical expenses also was not considered by the lower court and under those circumstances, the award granted under the multiplier method is also correct. 4.Heard both the parties. By consent, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 5.The accident is admitted, liability is admitted. Only the quantum is questioned. Even in the quantum, the only grievance of the appellant is the adoption of multiplier method. 6.Admittedly, the claimant who is a lady Doctor has suffered severe injuries namely, fracture in the right leg and hip fracture. She was also hospitalised for 12 days and thereafter she took further treatments. Her movement was restricted. P.W.4 Doctor who certified the disability certificate certified 50% disability but the Doctor has categorically admitted that she has continued to do her practice and therefore, there is no functional disability. The adoption of the multiplier method in awarding the compensation is not inconsonance with the rulings of this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court should not be carried away merely because there is a disability as certified by the Doctor. The Court has also to look into the fact whether there is a functional disability. Therefore, in such case when there is no evidence of any loss, the adoption of multiplier method is not correct. 8.If the multiplier method cannot be adopted what is the reasonable compensation. The Doctor has certified 50% disability and as per the various decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, upto Rs.2,000/- can be awarded for each percentage of disability. Therefore, if Rs.2,000/- is awarded for each percentage of disability, for 50% disability, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- could be awarded under this head. As far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the lower court has awarded only a meagre sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.2,500/-. Hence, it is increased to Rs.30,000/- taking into consideration the multiple fracture, namely, in the head and the leg and the long treatment as stated by Doctor. 9.The lower court has not awarded any amount under the head of attendant charges or transport. Definitely, the claimant would have availed the service of an attender and she would also spent some amount for transfer. Taking into consideration the prolonged treatment under those circumstances, Rs.20,000/- could be awarded for attender charges and Rs.20,000/- is awarded for transport charges. The lower court has awarded a meagre sum of Rs.2,500/- for extra nourishment which is very low. Hence, it is increased to Rs.15,000/- for extra nourishment. 10.The lower court has not awarded any amount under the head loss of income during the period of treatment. Apart from the 12 days in the hospital, she has taken treatment for four months. If Rs.10,000/- is considered as the income per month, for four months a sum of Rs.40,000/- could be awarded for loss of income during the treatment period. As far as the medical expenses is concerned, the lower court has awarded a sum of Rs.55,000/- as per the medical bill which is fair, reasonable and correct. 11.Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has rightly pointed out that no amount has been awarded under the head future medical expenses, in view of the fact that there is a further operation required for removal of the implant. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head future medical expenses. 12.In the result, the award amount is modified as follows: 1.for disability : Rs.1,00,000/- 2.for pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/- 3.for extra nourishment : Rs. 15,000/- 4.for medical expenses : Rs. 55,000/- 5.for future medical expenses : Rs. 20,000/- 6.for attender charges : Rs. 20,000/- 7.for transport charges : Rs. 20,000/- 8.for loss of income during treatment period : Rs. 40,000/- Total : Rs.3,00,000/- 13.In the result, this appeal is allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.7,80,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) along with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit of compensation. 14.It is represented that the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount as given earlier. Hence, Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount along with accrued interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The respondent/ claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount. No costs in appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To 1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The Subordinate Judge, Pollachi. 1 cc To Mr.V.S.Kesavan, Advocate, SR.75900 1 cc To Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate, SR.76004 C.M.A.No.3538 of 2011 And M.P.No.1 of 2011 MG(CO) RH (20.1.12) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/