New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs N. Thiyagarajan

Mr. R.Subbiah, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. in and by award dated 23.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.1114 of 2013. Since the present appeal has been filed only questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I am not dealing with the other aspects of the award.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on account of the accident, he had sustained fracture on his nasal bone, injuries on his right knee and right ankle and multiple injuries all over the body. Hence, he made a claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.

In order to prove the disability, the first respondent/claimant examined himself as PW1, besides examining Dr.K.J.Mathiazhagan as PW2 and marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9. PW2 had deposed in his evidence that on account of the accident, the first respondent/claimant sustained head injury, fracture of nasal bone, bilateral lung contusion with haemothorax and treated conservatively. PW2 had assessed the disability suffered by the victim at 50%. It is his further evidence that the victim is experiencing pain and stiffness in nasal area and occasional giddiness and vomiting.

The Tribunal, by considering the evidence of PW2, fixed the disability at 20% and by fixing the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and applying the multiplier "17" has awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- as compensation under the head loss of earning power in proportion to 20% disability.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that though it is not a fit case to adopt multiplier, the Tribunal by adopting the multiplier method, has awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- under the head loss of earning power, which is extremely on the higher side and hence, proper reduction has to be made.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to adopt multiplier method to award compensation since the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the victim is no way connected to the avocation of the claimant. The first respondent is only a salesman in a medical shop. Hence, the amount awarded under the head loss of earning power needs proper reduction. Since the Tribunal has not assigned any valid reason for reducing the disability from 50% to 20%, considering the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that the disability could be fixed at 50% as assessed by the PW2. If a sum of Rs.2,000/- for each percentage of disability is awarded, the total compensation for 50% disability works out to Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earning power is hereby reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the long duration of treatment, a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is extremely on the lower side and the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, a sum of Rs.4,58,072/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs.3,18,272/-. The break-up details of the modified award amount is as follows:

Loss of income for three months

Rs. 18,000/-

Transportation

Rs. 5,000/-

Extranourishment

Rs. 5,000/-

Damage to cloths

Rs. 1,000/-

Medical Expenses

Rs. 79,272/-

Attender Charges

Rs. 10,000/-

Pain and Suffering

Rs. 50,000/-

Loss of amenities

Rs. 50,000/-

Loss of earning power

Rs.1,00,000/-

Total

Rs.3,18,272/-

Rounded of to

Rs.3,19,000/-.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified award amount with proportionate interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent permitted to withdraw the amount on due application. The petitioner is also permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.