BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/01/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1515 of 2000 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Madurai Division No.III), Nagercoil. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Santhana Michael 2.Manickaraj (2nd respondent is given-up by the appellant) .. Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 30.12.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.106 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Nagercoil. !For Appellant ... Mr.N.Roobus Abraham ^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.C.Sankar Prakash :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
30.12.1999, passed in M.C.O.P.No.106 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Nagercoil.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 30.12.1999,
to a tune of Rs.1,20,845/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and
Forty five only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) Compensation as per the (Amendment) Act 54 of 1994 - Rs. 69,120.00 (ii) For Loss of Income - Rs. 28,800.00 (iii)For Medical Expenses - Rs. 17,925.00 (iv) For Pain and sufferings - Rs. 5,000.00 -------------- Total - Rs.1,20,845.00 --------------
4.The pith and marrow of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the
memorandum of appeal would run thus:
The Tribunal applied the multiplier system as against the law. The
Tribunal also awarded excess compensation under various sub-heads for the 15%
permanent disability sustained by the claimants.
5.The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ‘just
compensation’?
6. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined
and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked and on the side of the respondents R.W.1 was
examined and Ex.R.1 was marked.
7. Point: The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation
would submit that the multiplier system adopted by the Tribunal is not correct
in view of the well settled principles of law. Whereas the learned counsel for
the claimants would submit that even though medical certificate was to the
effect that the petitioner sustained only 15% permanent disability, yet the
evidence placed before the Tribunal was to the effect that the petitioner
sustained head injury; there was fracture of skull bone and also injury to the
brain; the claimant underwent several operations and that in view of the same
the compensation awarded itself is only moderate. At this juncture the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another reported in 2005(1)CTC-38 could fruitfully
be cited. An excerpt from it would run thus:
“The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(a) In all case 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 extend 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 till the rest of his life, in that event loss of
income or earning may be ascertained by applying “multiplier method” as provided
under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2) Even, if 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”.
If at all there is evidence before the Court that the injury made the injured to
lead a vegetative life or ideal life because of the accident the question of
applying the multiplier method would arise. Here the above narration of the
facts would demonstrate that the claimant at the time of accident was a brick
worker and there is nothing to evidence that he has been made to lead
vegetative or idle life. Hence, in such a case the multiplier system is not at
all applicable.
8. However, taking into consideration the discussion the Tribunal at
paragraph 6 of its judgment, this Court could understand that the claimant
sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal also highlighted that the scan report
which proved fracture of the bone of the head and swelling in the front portion
of the brain. It is also the admitted fact that he underwent several surgeries.
Hence, in such a case even though he sustained 15% permanent disability during
the year 1995, yet the compensation could be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/-
for each percentage of permanent disability as he sustained injury in his left
hand, right leg and fracture on the skull bone and that he also underwent
operations several times, If accordingly worked out it comes to Rs.2,000/- x 15
= Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only). Towards medical expenses a sum of
Rs.17,925/- was awarded based on bills, which could be confirmed. Towards pain
and sufferings a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded which could be enhanced to
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). Towards loss of income the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.28,800/-, which appears to be on the higher side. I am of
the opinion that for about 7 to 8 months he might not have been able to perform
his work and hence a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) could be
awarded. Certainly, the nature of the injury would make him not to move his
left hand freely, hence, towards loss of amenities a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) could be awarded. Towards Transport Expenses a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and towards taking nutritious food a sum
of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) could also be awarded. As such the
compensation awarded is modified as under:
(i) For Loss of Income during Treatment Period and convalescent period - Rs. 20,000.00
(ii) For Transportation Expenses – Rs. 5,000.00
(iii)For Nutritious Food – Rs. 2,000.00
(iv) For Medical Expenses – Rs. 17,925.00
(v) For Pain and sufferings – Rs. 15,000.00
(vi) For permanent disability – Rs. 30,000.00
(vii)For Loss of amenities – Rs. 10,000.00
————–
Total - Rs. 99,925.00 --------------
(The Compensation awarded is rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only).
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would convincingly argue that
the interest awarded was at 12% p.a., is on the higher side. Considering the
fact that the award was passed during the year 1999 the interest awarded is
reduced to 9% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. in commensurate with the rate prevailing
at that time.
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.1,20,845/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty
Thousand Eight
Hundred and Forty five only) to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The
rate of the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. is reduced to 9% p.a.
In other aspects the award shall hold good. No costs.
sj
TO
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(The Additional District Judge),
Nagercoil.