1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2011 Suresh ..Appellant/Claimant .Vs. 1. V.Palaniappan 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 793, Jawahar Bazaar, Karur-1 ..Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 against the award dated 30.07.2001 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.15 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur. For Appellant : M/s.N.Anandakumar For Respondent-2 : M/s.J.S.Murali For Respondent-1 : No appearance JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant/injured against the award of compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the injuries sustained by him resulting in permanent disability suffered by him in the accident occurred at 12.30 p.m. on 06.07.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep owned by the first respondent is insured with the second respondent in the claim petition. The date, time, place of the accident, manner of the accident and the fact that the injured/claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and fracture over his right leg and he underwent treatment as inpatient in the hospital and his right leg below knee was amputated and he was on the date of the accident 19 years old and was studying in B.Sc Computer course and was also according to the claim petition doing part-time job and earning Rs.1,500/-p.m. and are all not so seriously disputed. 2. The Tribunal on the basis of the independent and medical evidence let in awarded Rs.1 lakh as compensation under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 following heads: 1. for permanent disability - Rs. 75,000/- 2. for pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- 3. for extra nourishment - Rs. 15,000/- ------------- total - Rs.1,00,000/- -------------- 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before this Court that but for the accident the claimant would have completed his course and also pursued further studies and secured a good job and well-settled in life or could have after completing his under-graduation course, employed and earned a decent salary and because of the accident and injuries sustained by him and the amputation of his leg, the claimant is though able to complete his studies with great difficulty, unable to secure and do any job and he is almost immobilised and has been since the date of accident suffering for want of income and is now totally a burden to his parents who are not so financially sound enough to take care of him and take care of his day-to-day and medical expenses and the claimant has also lost his prospects of future married life and remains unmarried and lost his joy of marriage and other pleasures of life and has always been depending upon others. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the tribunal has awarded compensation only under three heads which is very unjust and unreasonable and the Tribunal ought to have treated his disability as 100% permanent disability and assessed his loss of income by adopting multiplier method and ought to have awarded separate compensation for loss of amenities and expectation of life, marriage prospects and other pleasure in life. This Court finds considerable bona fide in such contention so raised on behalf of the appellant/Claimant. 4. In view of the well-settled legal position that the compensation to be awarded in injury cases of such nature shall be more than the fatal cases, as the injured has to live with his disabled body and has to undergo his sufferings throughout his life and having regard to the extent of disability suffered by him and its severe impact upon his functional ability the disability can be assessed by applying the ratio in the Workmen Compensation Act and fixed as 60%. Though the learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Supreme Court in K.Janardhan .vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another reported in 2008(2) TN MAC 162 (SC) and a decision in Pratab Narain Singh Deo .vs. Srinivas Sabata and another reported in 1976(1) SCC 289 in support of his contention that it shall be taken as 100% disability, this Court is of the view that the cases as referred to above on the side of the learned counsel for the appellant stands factually distinguished as the victims of the accident in those cases was a tanker driver and Carpenter and hence, the Supreme Court assessed the disability at 100% by reason of amputation of right leg upto knee for the tanker https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 driver and the amputation of left arm from elbow for the Carpenter which is not the case herein. In this case considering the percentage of disability and corresponding functional disability, the loss of earning capacity and loss of future income has to be necessarily determined by applying multiplier method and considering the qualification of the injured and his age, his income, period during which the accident is happened, the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.36,000/- per annum and his loss of future earning capacity and future income by adopting multiplier of '16' is calculated as follows: Rs.36,000 x 16 x 50/100 =Rs.2,88,000/- The claimant is also in addition to the compensation for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects in life because of the amputation of his right hand and the total compensation due to him is as follows: 1. for permanent disability loss of earning capacity and loss of income - Rs.2,88,000/- 2. for pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- 3. for extra nourishment - Rs. 15,000/- 4. for loss of marriage prospects and joy of life -Rs. 1,00,000/- -------------- total -Rs. 4,13,000/- -------------- and the same is payable with interest at 7.5% p.a and the same is payable jointly and severally by the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with proportionate costs and the award of compensation dated 30.07.2001 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.15 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur is enhanced to Rs.4,13,000/-payable with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment (*) excluding the period of delay of 3275 days in filing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the enhanced award amount is payable within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the second respondent/Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount on behalf of the first respondent and out of the total compensation amount, the claimant is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount with entire costs and accrued interest and the balance sum shall be deposited in any one of the nationalised banks for three years. The injured/claimant is permitted to withdraw the future accrued interest from the above said deposit once in three months directly from the bank. The claimant is directed to deposit the additional court fee within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced award amount shall not carry interest for the period from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till the date of deposit of additional court fee. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) (*) Amended as per the order of this Court dated 08.06.2011 Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To To be substituted for the order already despatched on 31.05.2011 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur. Copy to : The Sub Assistant Registrar (AE) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (for collecting Additional Court fee) +1cc to Mr.J.S.Murali, Advocate Sr.No.13747 +1cc to Mr.N.Anandakumar, Advocate Sr.No.13203 vsn akm/08.08.11 /4p-5c/ C.M.A(MD)NO.368 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/