IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.3773 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, M.M.Reddy Complex, Old Bangalore Road, Hosur. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.V.Baskar, 2.C.Srinivasan. (2nd respondent was ex parte before the Tribunal) ... Respondents/Petitioner and 1st respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 30.3.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. For appellant : Mr.T.Ravichandran For 1st respondent : Mr.M.Selvam JUDGMENT The first respondent/claimant appears through counsel. By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The United India Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 30.3.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1084 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (First Additional District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of this case are as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follows:- The accident in this case happened on 18.12.2002. According to the claim, the injured claimant V.Baskar, aged about 25 years, a mason as well as an agriculturist, was travelling on a TVS moped, which was hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.MYH-7386. The said lorry is insured with the appellant. Consequent to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries, which are as follows:- (i) fracture of right leg femur, (ii) deep injury on the right leg, left leg, foot and knee. He was treated at Government Hospital, Hosur, as inpatient and thereafter, shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. He was treated for two weeks at that hospital. It is also stated by the claimant that he was taking treatment in the private clinic at Hosur and Krishnagiri. Consequent to the injuries, the injured claimant filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. 4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Gandhi was examined as P.W.2. The following documents were marked:- Ex.A-1 is the copy of F.I.R., dated 19.12.2002, Ex.A-2 is the copy of wound certificate dated 28.12.2002, Ex.A-3 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.A-4 is the copy of charge-sheet dated 28.2.2003, Ex.A-5 is the copy of criminal court judgment dated 28.5.2003, Ex.A-6 is the copy of wound certificate dated 28.2.2003, Ex.A-7 series are medical bills for Rs.3,018.05 Ex.A-8 is the disability certificate and Ex.A-9 series are the X-Rays No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal. 5. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry insured with appellant and the liability fixed on the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 6. As far as compensation is concerned, the same was decided by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tribunal from paragraphs 12 onwards of the award in answer to point No.3. Exs.A-2 and A-6 are the wound certificates which show the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. Doctor P.W.2 assessed the disability at 60% under Ex.A-7. The Tribunal, however, reduced the same to 40%. As far as income is concerned, taking note of the period of accident (i.e.) December 2002 and the nature of occupation of the injured claimant, viz., mason and agricultural work, the Tribunal in the absence of evidence fixed the income at Rs.2,500/- per month and the annual income at Rs.30,000/-, though the injured claimed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- per month. Holding that the injury will affect the earning capacity of the claimant in agricultural and masonry work, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method and invoked 17 multiplier in terms of second schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and calculated the life dependency of the injured at Rs.5,10,000/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3 was deducted leaving the balance of Rs.3,40,000/- and for 40% disability, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- (Rs.3,40,000/- x 40% = Rs.1,36,000/-) towards loss of earning. The Tribunal also granted amounts towards medical expenses, etc. In all, the Tribunal granted compensation as follows with 7.5% interest: Sl.N o. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning Rs.1,36,000/- 2 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-7 medical bills Rs. 3,018/- 3 Pain and sufferings and nutrition Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.1,44,018/- 7. Counsel for the appellant stated that there is no evidence to support the compensation granted by the Tribunal by adopting the multiplier method. In this case, after the treatment at the two hospitals, there is no other medical record to show that the disability is continuing even after the first period of treatment. He, however, fairly submitted that for the disability assessed, reasonable compensation can be granted along with compensation on other heads like, extra nourishment, loss of income, attender charges, transport, etc., which were omitted to be granted by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant on the other hand pleaded that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. If the Court is inclined to interfere with the compensation on the ground that the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous, adequate compensation may be granted on various heads as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (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." 10. There is no finding by the Tribunal that by the nature of injury suffered by the injured claimant, his earning capacity and employment is totally affected. There is no finding that the disablement in this case assessed by the doctor is such that his earning capacity is lost for the rest of his life. There is no material to show that the injured claimant will be idle for the rest of his life and consequently, there will be a total loss of income. Therefore, the question of applying multiplier method in this case does not arise as the parameters of paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal, therefore, clearly is an error. Accordingly, the compensation granted based on multiplier method cannot be justified. 11. However, as rightly pointed out by both the counsel, the injured claimant will be entitled to reasonable compensation on other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ heads, which were omitted to be granted by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.1,36,000/- granted towards loss of earning based on multiplier method is set aside and the entire award is modified as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of earning Rs.1,36,000/- --- 1(a) For disability assessed at 60% and reduced to 40% --- Rs. 50,000/- 1(b) Loss of income during the period of treatment --- Rs. 10,000/- 2 Medical expenses as per Ex.A-7 medical bills Rs. 3,018/- Rs. 3,018/- 3 Pain and sufferings and nutrition Rs. 5,000/- --- 3(a) Pain and suffering --- Rs. 30,000/- 3(b) Extra nourishment --- Rs. 7,500/- 4 Transport expenses incurred to travel to various hospitals --- Rs. 10,000/- 5 Attender charges --- Rs. 7,500/- Total Rs.1,44,018/- Rs. 1,18,018/- rounded of to Rs. 1,18,100/- 13. Since the accident happened in the year 2002 and the award was passed in the year 2007, the interest granted at 7.5% stands confirmed. 14. Counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount as ordered by this court and on such deposit, the counsel for the claimant prays for withdrawal and are allowed. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed as follows:- (i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.1,18,100/- from Rs.1,44,018/-. (ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed. (iii) The appellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and on such deposit the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. (iv) There will be no order as to costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ts To 1.First Additional District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Ravichandran,Advocate, SR.68489 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Selvam,Advocate, SR.68482 C.M.A.No.3773 of 2008 CK(CO) EM/22.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/