Manager, Oriental Insurance Company vs Murugan and Nisha See Foods

G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated 27.12.2001 passed in MCOP.No.345 of 1999 by

the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.

Heard both sides.

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 27.12.2001 has awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees ninety two thousand only) on the

following sub-heads:

For extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/-

For damage to dress - Rs. 2,000/-

For pain and sufferings - Rs. 30,000/-

For permanent disability - Rs. 30,000/-

For future loss of income - Rs. 25,000/-

-------------

Total - Rs. 92,000/-

-------------

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal this appeal has been filed on the main ground that the Tribunal

applied the multiplier method in calculating loss of income, which is not tenable and that the Tribunal also awarded excess amount under the various

sub heads as set out supra.

The points for consideration are (i) whether the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier method in assessing the future loss of income? and

(ii) whether the compensation awarded is ''just compensation''?

On points:

The learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would develop his arguments to the effect that a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty

five thousand only) was worked out by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier method, in addition to having awarded compensation under the

various sub heads as set out supra.

The learned Counsel for the first respondent/claimant would argue that awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for

future loss of income was quite a reasonable amount, as the claimant, who happened to be a farm owner was incapacitated from going in person

and looking after his agricultural operations. It has to be seen that after awarding compensation for permanent disability and various amounts under

various sub heads, the Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier method in awarding compensation under the count ""Loss of future

income"". In this connection, the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and

Another, . 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.

As such in view of the injuries, viz., injury to the hip and dislocation of the right knee, only themultiplier method is not a proper one as it cannot

be stated that it had totally incapacitated him from moving about and looking after his agricultural operations. Hence, the sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand only) should be replaced by the following:

(i) towards actual loss of income during the period of treatment, a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only); and

(ii) towards extra medical expenses over and above the treatment that he had taken at the hospital a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand

only).

In respect of other sub heads, the compensation awarded can be left as such without being interfered with. Accordingly, the compensation is

modified as under:

For extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/-

For damage to dress - Rs. 2,000/-

For pain and sufferings - Rs. 30,000/-

For permanent disability - Rs. 30,000/-

For actual loss of income - Rs. 5,000/-

For extra medical expenses - Rs. 5,000/-

-------------

Total - Rs. 77,000/-

-------------

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.92,000/- (Rupees ninety two

thousand only) to Rs.77,000/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% as directed by the Tribunal. No

costs.