IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3761 OF 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jawaharlar Nehru Road, Pondicherry. ... Appellant Versus 1.V.Krishnamurthy 2.V.Sathish ... Respondents Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.09.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.677 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, II Additional Sub Judge (Incharge), Cuddalore. For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel For Respondents : Mr.M.Selvam (R-1) J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 28.09.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.677 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, II Additional Sub Judge (Incharge), Cuddalore. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 13.10.2004, at around 06.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, on the Nellithope market street, Pondicherry, the first respondent's motorcycle bearing Registration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.PY-01-Y-3096, coming from the opposite direction and driven by its driver at high speed, dashed against the cyclist. In the result, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Hence the claim petition was filed against the respondents for compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. 3.The second respondent / Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had been committed by the rider of the motorcycle. Actually, the petitioner had suddenly crossed the road on his bicycle and dashed against the motorcyclist. As such the accident took place. The age, income and occupation of the claimant were also denied. The claim amount is an excessive one. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Who was responsible for the accident? (ii)Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as PW1 and a doctor was examined as PW2. The following documents were marked namely, First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Medical Discharge Summary, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Claimant's occupational certificate, disability certificate, X-ray etc., On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no documentary evidence was given. 6.PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 13.10.2004, at around 6.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his bicylce on the Nellithope market street, Pondicherry, the first respondent's motorcycle, coming in the opposite direction and ridden by its rider in a negligent manner, dashed against him. He further stated that in the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Panruti for preliminary treatment. Thereafter, he had undergone treatment at a Private Hospital. PW2, the doctor, had assessed the disability as 40%, after examining the claimant. The claimant's right foot joint was fractured and the fractured bone was un-united. His right leg foot had been thickened by about 5.5 cm, on his right leg, the fifth toe was fractured. 7.On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the above appeal to scale down the compensation. 9.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal had adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- under the head of 'loss of income due to disability' and this is not pertinent in this case, as the claimant's avocation has not been affected. The learned counsel further argued that the claimant had suffered simple injuries, but the doctor had assessed disability at 40%, which is on the higher side. 10.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant was engaged as a painter and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to do his normal work as painter. The Tribunal's award of compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, nutrition, attender charges, transport were on the lower side. 11.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal's adoption of multiplier method is not correct. Hence, this Court restructures the compensation as follows:- Rs.80,000/- towards loss of income due to disability; Rs.5,000/- for nutrition; Rs.5,000/- for transport; Rs.5,000/- for attender charges; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during medical treatment period and convalescent period Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities and loss of comfort. In total, this Court awards Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation as it is found to be fair and equitable. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation. As such, this Court scales down the compensation from Rs.1,64,000/- to Rs.1,30,000/-. 12.On 04.12.2008, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant / National Insurance Company to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- together with proportionate interest to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.677 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IInd Additional Sub Judge (Incharge), Cuddalore. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest, as observed above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the modified compensation amount with accrued interest as fixed by this Court lying in the credit of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.C.O.P.No.677 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IInd Additional Sub Judge (Incharge), Cuddalore, after filing a Memo along with this order. 13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, II Additional Sub Judge (Incharge), Cuddalore made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.677 of 2005, dated 28.09.2007 is modified. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To The Principal Subordinate Judge, II Additional Subordinate Court , (Incharge), (MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL) CUDDALORE. +1CC TO MR.S.VADIVEL, ADVOCATE SR 23516 +1CC TO MR.M.SELVAM, ADVOCATE SR 23704 JRG(CO) KM/8.7. C.M.A.NO. 3761 OF 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/