BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.1589 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Thenkasi Road, Near Syndicate Bank, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. ... Appellant Vs 1.M.Palaniselvam 2.K.J.Ravichandraraja ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 25.01.2006 passed in MCOP.No.33 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur. !For Appellant ... Mr.C.Ramachandran ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent No.2 ... No appearance :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
25.01.2006 passed in MCOP.No.33 of 2003 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal cum the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would run thus:
The Tribunal vide Judgement dated 25.01.2006 has awarded compensation to a
tune of Rs.1,62,349/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand three hundred and
forty nine only) on the following sub-heads:
For loss of income – Rs.1,39,200/-
For medical expenses – Rs. 16,449/-
For extra nourishment – Rs. 3,000/-
For pain and sufferings – Rs. 3,000/-
For transportation - Rs. 500/- For damages to dress - Rs. 200/- ------------- Total - Rs.1,62,349/- -------------
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree of the
Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
on the following grounds:
The multiplier system has been applied by the Tribunal without any
justification in the injury case and that the compensation arrived at by the
Tribunal is on the higher side.
5. The point for considerations are (i) whether the multiplier system
adopted by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation in injury case is
justified? and (ii) whether there is any infirmity in the Judgment of the
Tribunal?
6. On points:
The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would draw the
attention of this Court to the fact that the Tribunal fixed the permanent
disability at 30%, even though the doctor gave opinion that injured sustained
45% permanent disability. The injured sustained fracture on his left leg. No
doubt, because of that, there was some shortening of the left leg and that he
could not walk speedily and he suffered partial permanent disability. It is a
trite proposition of law that the multiplier system can be applied only in
matters, where there is total permanent disability. If the injured’s life has
become a mere vegetative one and that his existence is worse than death, then in
that case certainly the compensation can even exceed the compensation, which
could be awarded in the event of death.
7. No doubt at the relevant time of the accident, the claimant was an
youngster and student and because of that accident his future prospects might
have got affected. While awarding compensation for the partial permanent
disability, the Court takes into account his loss of future income also and as
such separately for future loss of income, no calculation need be made by
adopting multiplier method for 30% permanent disability. Even at the rate of
Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for each percentage of disability, the
compensation could be awarded, taking into account the fact that the claimant
was a youngster and student at the relevant time of the accident and accordingly
if worked out, it comes to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) for the
partial permanent disability. As such sum of Rs.1,39,200/- (Rupees one lakh
thirty nine thousand and two hundred only) calculated towards the permanent
disability is modified as Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) and the rest
of the compensation awarded under various other sub heads are left undisturbed
as nothing has been shown that the said awarding of amount are unjustifiable.
Accordingly, the compensation is modified as under:
For loss of income – Rs.60,000/-
For medical expenses – Rs.16,449/-
For extra nourishment – Rs. 3,000/-
For pain and sufferings – Rs. 3,000/-
For transportation – Rs. 500/-
For damages to dress – Rs. 200/-
———–
Total – Rs.83,149/-
———–
8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and
the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.1,62,349/- (Rupees one lakh sixty
two thousand three hundred and forty nine only) to Rs.83,149/- (Rupees eighty
three thousand one hundred and forty nine only), which shall carry interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum as directed by the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
smn
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Srivilliputtur.