The first respondent/caveator/claimant appears through counsel. By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
2. The National Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.8.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.No.116 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam.
3. It is a case of injury. The brief facts of this case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 26.7.2005 at 9.30 p.m. The injured claimant R.Senniappan, aged about 45 years and said to be working as an agricultural coolie and a cattle broker, was travelling on a cycle. At that time, the bus insured with the appellant insurance company driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the cyclist Senniappan. In that accident, the said Senniappan suffered grievous injuries. The right hand of the said Senniappan was seriously injured and it was amputated. He also suffered fracture to left hand and skull fracture. He was treated at Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, then at Coimbatore Government Hospital and thereafter, at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. He filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.11,75,000/-, stating that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month at the time of accident.
4. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.K.Periyasamy was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of F.I.R., dated 26.7.2005, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection Report dated 27.7.2005, Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of rough sketch, Ex.A-5 is the certified coy of charge sheet dated 11.1.2006, Ex.A-6 is the note book recording the treatment given to the injured claimant by the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Ex.A-7 is the medical receipt, Ex.A-8 is the medical bill, Ex.A-9 is the scan report, Ex.A-10 is the CT Scan, A-11 series are the X-Rays (three in number) and Ex.A-12 is the wound certificate dated 23.8.2008 assessing the disability at 80%.
No oral or documentary evidence was let on behalf of the appellant insurance company, the third respondent before the Tribunal.
5. The finding of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus insured with appellant and the liability fixed on the appellant insurance company to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
6. Since the injured claimant is an agriculturist and a cattle broker, the Tribunal fixed the income of the injured at Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering the nature of injury which is amputation of right hand and the long period of treatment in different hospital and also taking into consideration the nature of employment as an agricultural coolie, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the injured claimant has lost his capacity to earn as before and the injury and amputation is affected his livelihood to a very great extent. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 based on the age of the injured claimant and determined the compensation as follows with 7.5% interest:- Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 15 x 80% = Rs.5,76,300/-) Rs.5,76,300/-
Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8 medical bill Rs. 34,319/-
Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
4 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.6,40,619/- (wrongly calculated to Rs.6,40,319/-)
7. In appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal was justified in adopting the multiplier method to determine the compensation in a case of injury of this nature resulting in amputation of the right hand, the multiplier as in the case of death need not be adopted. He relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483 wherein this court sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:-
"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."
He therefore, sought for reduction in quantum of compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ claimant on the other hand pleads that no amount has been granted towards attender charges and towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence and meagre amount has been granted towards extra nourishment considering the long period of treatment. She justified the quantum of compensation on the whole.
9. The injured claimant is aged about 45 years at the time of accident and an agricultural coolie. Keeping in mind the parameters laid down in the Division Bench judgment cited above, the Tribunal is justified in adopting the multiplier method and determining the quantum of compensation. However, as held by the Division Bench of this Court the question of adopting the multiplier as in the case of death will not be justified. The injured claimant though cannot work as before, he can do some other form of work without physical strength. This Court is inclined to fix the multiplier at 13 considering the fact that no amount has been granted for attender charges and towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence. The court is also aware of the fact that meagre amount has been granted for extra nourishment. He also needs to be taken care of medically for the rest of his life as he suffered not only injuries to the right hand, but also to the left hand and skull. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to modify the award of the Tribunal as follows:- Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 15 x 80% = Rs.5,76,300/-) Rs.5,76,300/-
---
1(a) Loss of earning (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 13 x 80% = Rs.4,99,200/-)
---
Rs.4,99,200/-
Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8 medical bills Rs. 34,319/-
Rs. 34,319/-
Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
Rs. 20,000/-
4 Extra nourishment expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 5 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.6,40,619/- (wrongly calculated to Rs.6,40,319/-) Rs.5,63,519/- rounded of to Rs.5,63,600/-
There is no dispute with regard to interest granted at 7.5% and the same is confirmed.
10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed as follows:-
(i) The award of the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.5,63,600/- from Rs.6,40,319/-.
(ii) The interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% stands confirmed.
(iii) As requested by the counsel for the appellant, the appellant is granted eight weeks' time to deposit the award amount and on such deposit the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
(iv) There will be no order as to costs.
(v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed.
6.4.2009 Index: No Internet: Yes ts To The Principal Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Gobichettipalayam. R.SUDHAKAR,J. ts Judgment in C.M.A.No.928 of 2009 6.4.2009