Insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2008 passed in MCOP No. 87 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Karaikkal, Pondicherry District.
2. The accident in this case happened on 6.9.2006 on Bharathi road Karaikkal. The injured claimant Ramesh Babu, 42 years old, owner of an engineering company, was travelling on a TVS 50 moped when he was bit by another TVS 50 moped insured with the appellant insurance company. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries to the shoulder and on other parts of the body. He was treated at Sugam Priya Hospital, Karaikkal and thereafter at Nambi nursing home and research center, Chengalpattu. He underwent a surgery on 9.9.2006 and was discharged on 17.9.2006. He was taking physiotherapy at Sugam Priya Hospital, Karaikkal. Stating that his income was Rs.20,000/- p.m., he claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
3. In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. and the Dr.L. Gopikrishnan, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A27 were marked. The relevant documents are Exs.A4 to A16 which includes the details of the medical treatment as well as the income and nature of the occupation of the injured claimant. The disability has been assessed at 10% under Ex.A27. He also filed income tax certificate form for the relevant assessment year stating that his income was Rs.1,05,000/- p.a.
4. The finding of negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and the liability of the appellant insurance company to compensate is not disputed. Such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal applied 15 multiplier and by taking the income as Rs.1,05,500/-p.a., for the disability assessed at 10% fixed the loss of income as Rs.1,58,250/-. In addition, the Tribunal granted compensation on other heads. In all, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Loss of income due to disability Rs. 1,58,250/-
6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal is not justified in applying the multiplier method when the claimant has not suffered any loss in the business due to injury so as to grant higher compensation based on the multiplier method.
7. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 ACJ 1483.
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. Para 11 which is relevant, 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. The learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand pleaded that even if the multiplier method is not accepted, the claimant will be entitled to just compensation for the disability assessed, loss of income during the period of treatment, pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, extra nourishment and future medical expenses as well.
10. Considering the evidence of the Doctor, which has been recorded by the Tribunal in detail and Ex.P5, accident register, it is clear that the injured claimant suffered grievous injuries and simple injuries to the left femur. He was in two hospitals for some times. As per the evidence of the Doctor, the movement of the left shoulder is restricted and painful. He cannot drive two wheeler and lift heavy weight. The movement of the joint is also restricted.
11. Considering all these aspects, the disability has been assessed at 10%. There is no dispute that the claimant is continuing the business. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in adopting multiplier method as the parameter of para 11 of the Division Bench decision cited above are not attracted to the facts of this case. However, considering the age of the injured claimant, period of hospitalisation, nature of injury and the treatment given, the claimant will be entitled to higher compensation for pain and suffering. He is also entitled to higher compensation for extra nourishment and for future medical expenses since he has to undergo physiotherapy consequent to the injuries suffered.
12. There is no total loss of earning capacity to adopt the multiplier method. Considering all the aspects of the case, the compensation granted by the Tribunal by applying multiplier method in a sum of Rs.2,28,907/- is set aside and the award stands modified as follows:-
Sl.No.
Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount granted by this Court 1 Disability assessed at 10%
---
Rs.25,000/-
Loss of income due to disability Rs. 1,58,250/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Rs.30,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 7,500/- Damage to cloths Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 29,000/- Rs.29,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 6,400/- Rs. 6,400/- Partial loss of income Rs. 27,375/- --- Loss of income during the period of treatment --- Rs.40,000/- Future medical expenses including physiotherapy --- Rs.10,000/- Attender charges --- Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs.2,28,907/- Rs.1,56,900/-
13. Since the accident happened in the year 2006 and the award was passed in the year 2008, the interest granted by the Tribunal 7.5% p.a. stands confirmed.
14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed as follows:-
(i) The award of the Tribunal stands reduced to Rs.1,56,900/- from Rs.2,28,907
(ii) The award amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.
(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the balance award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as per the orders of this Court.
(iv) Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is closed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge), Karaikkal, Pondicherry District