Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 28.2.2006 passed in MCOP No. 1115 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Court), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.
2. First Respondent is served and appears through counsel. With the consent of both parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. It is case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 14.4.2004. The injured claimant first respondent Parasuraman, aged 48 years, a mason and a building contractor, was walking on the road when he was hit by the motor cycle belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant and in that accident, he suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and injuries to all over the body. He claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.
4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr. Ashokkumar was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A8 were marked. Ex.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ex.A3 is the medical reports. Ex.A4 series are the medical bills. Ex.A5 is the copy of the M.V.I. Report. Ex.A6 series are the transport receipts. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate assessing the disability at 40%. Ex.A8 is the x-ray.
5. The disability has been assessed by the Doctor at 40%. However, the Tribunal reduced the disability at 30% and adopting 13 multiplier and awarded the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income due to disability at 30% Rs. 1.68,480/-
6. In appeal, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal by adopting 13 multiplier for the disability assessed at 30%, granted higher compensation in a sum of Rs.1,68,480/-. The interest granted at 9% is excessive. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, who pleaded that the compensation is just and reasonable and need not be reduced.
8. A Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483, set out the principles as to when multiplier method should be adopted in a case of injury in para 11 which reads as follows:-
"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."
9. In this case, the Tribunal has not shown any good reason as to why 13 multiplier has been adopted for the disability assessed as 30% when admittedly there is no concrete material to show that the injuries have affected the earning capacity of the injured claimant for the rest of his life permanently. It is not a case of total incapacity to earn as before. In such circumstances, as against 13 multiplier, it would be appropriate to adopt multiplier of 10. Therefore, the sum of Rs.1,68,480/- granted towards loss of income due to disability at 30% is set aside. The claimant however is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for the disability assessed at 30%. Accordingly, the compensation for loss of income based on the disability is reduced to Rs.1,29,600/-(Rs.43,200/- x 10x30%= Rs.1,29,600/-) as against Rs.1,68,480/-. Other amounts granted by the Tribunal are not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same are confirmed. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal stands modified as follows:-
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of income due to disability at 30% Rs. 1.68,480/-
Rs.1,29,600/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 72,711/- Rs. 72,711/- 3 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 21,600/- Rs. 21,600/- 4 Transport expenses Rs. 9,200/- Rs. 9,200/- 5 Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 6 Attender charges Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 12,000/- 7 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,13,991/- Rs.2,75,111/-
10. Since the accident happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2006, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5% in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya).
11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:-
(i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.2,75,111/- from Rs.3,13,991/-.
(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% stands reduced to 7.5% p.a.
(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant states that pursuant to the interim order dated 15.2.2007, a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- has been deposited and the claimant was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He seeks six weeks time to deposit the balance amount if any, and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount as per the order of this Court.
(iv) There shall be no orders as to costs.
(v) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed.
ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I Additional District Court), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri