The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Vellaiyammal and N.A. Singaraja

G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in MCOP. No. 93 of 2001 by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the first respondent has not appeared

before this Court, despite printing his name in the cause list.

The learned Counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company prays for dispense with the notice to R2 as no prayer is made as against R2 and

hence notice to R2 is dispensed with.

The Tribunal vide Judgment dated 31.08.2006 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs. 1,69,000/- (Rupees one lakh and sixty nine thousand

only) on the following sub-heads:

For medical expenses - Rs. 23,000/-

For permanent disability - Rs. 40,000/-

For future loss of income - Rs. 96,000/-

For pain and sufferings - Rs. 5,000/-

For transport expenses, food,

dress and extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/-

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

Total - Rs. 1,69,000/-

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

The nitty-gritty of the grievance of the appellant/Insurance Company in the grounds of appeal could be portrayed thus:

The Tribunal awarded excessive compensation without adhering to the principles contemplated under law. The first respondent/claimant happens

to be an agricultural coolie of nineteen years old and for the loss of her four toes on the right leg is on the higher side. The learned Counsel for the

appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal after awarding compensation for the permanent disability sustained by the claimant,

has also invoked the multiplier system and awarded in addition a sum of Rs. 96,000/- (Rupees ninety six thousand only) towards loss of income.

The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded ''just compensation''?

On point:

The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd.

Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, would develop his arguments to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation by

invoking the multiplier system in addition to having awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) towards permanent disability.

It is a trite proposition of law that the multiplier system cannot be invoked in injury cases indiscriminately. In this connection, the decision of this

Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, could fruitfully be cited. 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.

It is therefore clear from the perusal of the aforesaid Judgment that in this case multiplier system cannot be ushered in as the injured got lost only

her four toes on her left leg and she has not made to lead a vegetative life or idle life; as such interference is required relating to the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

For 40% permanent disability, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) could be awarded at the rate of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two

thousand only) for each percentage of permanent disability as she was nineteen years at the time of sustaining injury.

Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs. 23,000/- (Rupees twenty three thousand only) was awarded by the Tribunal based on receipts could

be confirmed.

Under the caption ''pain and sufferings'' the Tribunal awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only), which could be

enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

Towards transport expenses, food, dress and extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only)

and that could be modified to the effect that a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) could be awarded for extra nourishment and a sum

of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) could be awarded for transport expenses.

Under the caption loss of income a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) could be awarded for the reason that as an agricultural

coolie, she could have earned a considerable sum and at least five months she might not have been able to perform her work.

Towards loss of amenities a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) could be awarded. Accordingly, the compensation is modified as

under:

For medical expenses - Rs. 23,000/-

For permanent disability - Rs. 80,000/-

For pain and sufferings - Rs. 10,000/-

For extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/-

For transport expenses - Rs. 2,000/-

For loss of income - Rs. 10,000/-

For loss of amenities - Rs. 10,000/-

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

Total - Rs.1,40,000/-

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

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 1,69,000/- (Rupees one lakh

and sixty nine thousand only) to Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only), which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% as

directed by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.