AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed by the respondent in the
M.C.O.P. No. 100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur against the award of the said Tribunal dated
24.01.2006 made in the above said MCOP awarding a sum of Rs. 2,48,200/- as compensation to the respondent herein for the injuries sustained
by him in the road accident that took place on 26.12.2003 at about 12.30 p.m. at Tulukkavelicolony, Chozhapuram on the Kumbakonam-
Chennai main road.
The respondent herein had filed MCOP No. 100/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Ariyalur contending that
he met with an accident, while he was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN-49 N-2612 on the Kumbakonam - Chennai main road
keeping his father as a pillion rider, as the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation which came in
the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle in which he was proceeding, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries leading to
permanent disability, despite medical treatment. It was the further contention raised in the MCOP that while he was proceeding in his motor cycle
cautiously following the rules of the road, the driver of the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 which came in the opposite direction, drove it in
a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the unfortunate accident, as the said bus dashed against the motor cycle in which the
respondent/petitioner was proceeding. The respondent/petitioner had also averred that he was earning a daily income of Rs. 200/- and his average
monthly income prior to the date of accident was Rs. 5,000/-; that after the accident he suffered disability to a larger extent which resulted in the
loss of his earning capacity. The respondent/petitioner had claimed a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, without giving any split up particulars, as
compensation from the appellant transport corporation.
The claim of the respondent was resisted by the appellant/transport corporation by filing a counter statement denying the petition averments
regarding the manner in which the accident took place and contending that it was the negligence on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the
unfortunate accident and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. It was further
averred in the counter statement that when the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation was nearing the place of accident, the driver of
the bus saw a cow crossing the road and in order to avoid hitting the cow, he turned the bus towards the extreme left and stopped the same and
that the respondent/petitioner, who came in the moped in the opposite direction having his father as a pillion rider, on seeing the bus lost his
balance, as a result of which the moped came in a zig-zag manner, dashed against the stationary bus and thus the respondent sustained injuries. The
petition averments regarding the age, occupation and income of the respondent/petitioner, nature of injuries sustained by him, the treatment given to
him and the disabilities suffered by him were also disputed by the appellant/respondent in the counter statement. The appellant/respondent had
prayed for the dismissal of the MCOP with cost holding the appellant transport corporation not liable to pay any compensation to the
respondent/petitioner.
The Tribunal framed necessary issues and conducted trial, in which three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 15 documents were
marked as Ex.A1 to A15 on the side of the respondent/petitioner. The X-ray produced by the respondent/petitioner has been marked as M.O.1.
The driver of the offending bus figured as the sole witness, namely R.W.1, and no document was marked, on the side of the appellant/respondent.
The Tribunal considered the evidence brought before it, both oral and documentary, in the light of the arguments advanced on either side and upon
such a consideration, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus
bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation and that the respondent/petitioner was entitled to claim
compensation from the appellant transport corporation for the injuries sustained by him and their consequences.
The Tribunal took the age of the petitioner at the time of accident to be 26 years and the monthly income of the deceased prior to the accident
at Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the respondent/petitioner suffered permanent disability, which could be assessed at
45%. Holding that the said permanent disability resulted in the loss of earning capacity to an equal extent, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.
2,48,200/- as compensation with the following break-up particulars:
Loss of earning capacity : Rs. 1,78,200/-
Medical Expenses : Rs. 30,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of comforts due to the
permanent disability suffered
by the respondent/petitioner : Rs. 15,000/-
Extra Nourishment : Rs. 10,000/-
----------------
Total : Rs. 2,48,200/-
----------------
The above said amount was directed to be paid along with an interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and along with
proportionate cost.
Aggrieved by and challenging the award of the Tribunal dated 24.01.2006 on the question of negligence as well as quantum, the appellant
transport corporation has brought-forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds enumerated in the grounds of appeal.
The points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
i Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus bearing Regn.
No. TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation is erroneous?
ii Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and excessive warranting reduction in this appeal?
This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Counsel for the appellant and by Mr. A.A. Venkatesan, learned
Counsel for the respondent/petitioner. The materials available on record were also perused.
The fact that there occurred an accident on 26.12.2003 at about 12.30 p.m at Tulukkavelicolony, Chozhapuram on the Kumbakonam-Chennai
main road in which the two wheeler motorcycle bearing Regn. No. TN-49 N-2612, in which the respondent/petitioner was proceeding keeping his
father as pillion rider and the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 belonging to the appellant transport corporation were involved, is not
disputed. It is also not in dispute that both the vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions and it was a head on collision resulting in injuries to
the respondent/petitioner. But the pleas of the parties are at variance as to who was at fault and whose rash and negligent act was the cause of the
accident.
According to the respondent/petitioner, it was the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant who drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
caused the accident by dashing the bus against the two wheeler motorcycle in which he was proceeding in the opposite direction. Per contra, the
appellant/respondent would contend that there was no want of care, negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the
appellant transport corporation and on the other hand, it was the injured respondent/petitioner who rode the two wheeler in a rash and negligent
manner, lost his balance on seeing a cow crossing the road and paved the way for the accident. It is the specific contention of the appellant
transport corporation that the bus driver, on seeing a cow crossing the road, drove the bus to the extreme left and stopped it in an attempt to avoid
hitting the cow and on the other hand, the injured respondent/petitioner, who came in the opposite direction lost his balance on seeing the cow
crossing the road, came in a zig-zag manner and dashed against the bus, which had by then become stationary.
In this regard, the injured respondent/petitioner figured as P.W.1 and deposed in line with the petition averments. He has also produced a copy
of the first information report marked as Ex.A1 to corroborate his statement that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus and to show that a criminal case was registered only against the bus driver. From Ex.A1, it is obvious that the police registered a
criminal case against the driver of the bus for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC in Cr. No. 467/2003 on the file of
Thirupananthal police station. The police received intimation from the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam regarding the admission of the
respondent/petitioner with the injuries sustained in the road accident, proceeded towards the hospital and recorded the statement of the father of
the respondent/petitioner (injured), as the respondent at that time was unconscious. The contents of Ex.A1 clearly corroborate the evidence of
P.W.1.
On the other hand, one Mathiazhagan, who was the driver of the bus involved in the accident, while deposing as R.W.1 admitted that the
police registered a criminal case only against him and that the criminal case, as on the date of his examination before the Tribunal was pending.
Though R.W.1 deposed in line with the averments found in the counter statement as to how the accident took place, except the interested
testimony of R.W.1, there is no other material to support his version. Moreover, the appellant transport corporation has not chosen to produce
copies of observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer to show the exact location of the accident spot. The
appellant transport corporation has also failed to produce any photograph to show the location of the accident spot in support of its contention that
R.W.1, the bus driver had stopped the bus at the extreme left side of the road on seeing the injured (respondent/petitioner) coming in a zig-zag
manner in the opposite direction in his moped and at the same time a cow crossing the road and that the respondent/injured along with his moped
came and dashed against the bus which had then become stationary. Specific questions were asked to R.W.1 during cross-examination as to
whether such documents were produced for which the answer was in the negative. When R.W.1 was confronted with such questions, the appellant
transport corporation ought to have produced those documents to substantiate its version regarding the manner in which the accident took place.
But the appellant transport corporation failed to produce any such document. Under such circumstances alone, the Tribunal came to a correct
conclusion that the evidence adduced on the side of the respondent (injured) was enough to prove the petition allegation that the accident took
place due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending bus bearing Regn. No. TN-32 N-0905 which belonged to the
appellant/respondent and that on the other hand, the appellant had not proved that there was any negligence on the part of the injured or that the
driver of the bus was not at fault. The well considered finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act on the
part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation does not warrant any interference and on the other hand deserves to
be confirmed. Accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal is confirmed.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is assailed as unreasonable and excessive. The learned Counsel for the
appellant argued that though the Tribunal had taken average income of the injured to be Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal had also erroneously
held that the deceased was aged 26 years as on the date of accident, whereas as per the documents produced by the injured himself he was aged
more than 30 years as on the date of accident and that it had also committed an error in applying the multiplier method without considering the
suitability of the same to the facts of the case. According to the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, though the respondent has
produced a disability certificate issued by P.W.2 to the effect that he suffered disability at 45%, evidence as to how the instant of disability was
arrived at, is lacking; that even assuming that the functional disability could be assessed at 45%, the loss of earning capacity could not, in all cases,
be equated with the functional disability; that the loss of earning capacity might be less than the percentage of the functional disability or even more
than the percentage of the functional disability and that it would not be enough to prove the functional disability alone and it must be proved how
much of his earning capacity was lost because of the functional disability
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that a qualified medical practitioner specialised in the particular field has
given the disability certificate and the wisdom of such medical practitioner specialised in the particular field, cannot be substituted by the view of
others; that normally the percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be equal to the percentage of functional disability unless the skill needed for a
work in which the injured is trained is proved to be not affected or affected at a lesser degree, in which case the loss of earning capacity shall be
less than the percentage of physical disability or in case it is proved that the injured was skilled only in a particular type of work and the disability
which may be lesser in percentage would have greatly affected the capability of the injured to do such work, in which case the loss of earning
capacity can be assessed even at a higher rate than the percentage of physical disability. This Court finds substance in the above said submission
made by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no basis for the
assessment of disability at 45% and that there is lack of evidence to show that the loss of earning capacity shall be equal to the percentage of
physical disability, cannot be rejected as untenable. In this case, besides examining himself as P.W.1, the respondent herein/petitioner has
examined two medical officers as P.Ws.2 and 3 to prove the nature of injuries sustained by him and the resultant disability caused to him. It is the
evidence of P.W.1 that he sustained a lacerated injury on the right side shoulder and a head injury on the right frontal region resulting in bleeding
through the nostrils and ears. Besides deformity in the right little finger and several abrasions all over the body were also found. It is his further
evidence that the injuries resulted in disfiguration of the face besides frequent head-aches and loss of eye sight in both the eyes to a greater extent.
P.W.3 - Dr. Raja has been examined as the Medical Officer who attended on the injured respondent at Government General Hospital,
Kumbakonam. P.W.3 has simply stated that the deceased was found unconscious and blood was found oozing through the ears. He has identified
Ex.P2 to be the copy of the Accident Register issued to the injured at Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. He has not referred to the injuries
noted in the said document. Ex.P2 is the xerox copy of the Accident Register. Only two injuries are found in Ex.P2. The first injury is a laceration
measuring 3 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on the right frontal region. The particulars of second injury are not legible. Though the petitioner has stated
that he sustained an injury on the right side shoulder, there is no record to show that such an injury was there. Exs.P3 to P5 have been produced to
show that the petitioner was given treatment in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, in the medical college hospital, Thanjavur and in Joseph
Eye Hospital at Tiruchirappalli. Though Ex.P4 has been produced as the treatment book issued to the petitioner at Thanjavur Medical College
Hospital, Thanjavur, the said document is to the effect that he was admitted on 26.01.2004 and discharged on 27.01.2004. These particulars are
found at page 1 and page 3. However at page 5, the date is mentioned as 11.01.2004. Any how the said document shows that he was given
treatment as an in-patient for two days alone. Ex.P5 is not helpful to the respondent/petitioner to prove his case.
Though a receipt has been included in Ex.P6 to show that CT scan was taken on 25.02.2005, Scan Report is not available. The
respondent/injured has produced nine receipts for purchase of medicine. The said receipts cover a sum of Rs. 554.09. Apart from that, six receipts
(trip sheets for the journeys undertaken) have been included in Ex.P6 series. But there is no evidence as to why and for what purpose they have
been produced. Apart from the said documents, there is yet another document, namely a xerox copy of a patient identity card issued by Aravind
Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, which has been marked as Ex.P9. These documents are not enough to show how much was the expenditure incurred
by the respondent/petitioner for medical expenses. In fact, all these documents have been simply produced along with the proof affidavit without
being correlated to the petition averments. The Tribunal also seems to have simply received all the scrap of papers without considering its
relevancy and its evidentiary value. Moreover, as against a sum of Rs. 554.09 covered by the medical bills and a sum of Rs. 350/- covered by the
bill for CT scan available in Ex.P6 series (grant total Rs. 904.09), the Tribunal has chosen to award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards medical
expenses. The learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the Tribunal awarded the above said sum as medical expenses
arbitrarily without applying its mind to the available documents. The respondent/petitioner who has produced illegible documents and a certificate
obtained from P.W.2 to the effect that the respondent/petitioner sustained 45% permanent disability seems to have simply fished out of troubled
waters.
P.W.2 was not the person who gave treatment to the respondent/petitioner. He seems to have examined the petitioner for the purpose of
assessing disability and based on such assessment, issued Ex.P15-disability certificate. Of course he has stated that the vision of the petitioner has
been impaired because of the neurological problem caused, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th
nerve in the brain have been affected. The result of the same has been stated to be weakness in the right hand, defect in eyesight and difficulty in
causing wrinkles in the foreheads by raising eyebrows. However P.W.2 has not stated on what basis he assessed the disability at 45%. Moreover,
there is no evidence to show the extent of loss of earning capacity caused due to the above said disabilities. Under such circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that though normally the court will not substitute its wisdom to that of a qualified Medical Officer in assessing the
disability, it is a fit case in which the assessment of disability made by P.W.2 cannot be accepted to be correct. This Court is also of the view that
even assuming that the percentage of disability assessed by P.W.2 to be taken as correct, the same will not have resulted in loss of earning
capacity to the respondent/petitioner to the same extent. The learned Counsel for the appellant transport corporation and the learned Counsel for
the respondent also during the course of argument concurred with the view expressed by the court that it is a fit case in which the percentage of
disability and the loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 25%.
Though the injured (respondent/petitioner) stated in his petition that he was having a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- prior to the date of
accident, an attempt was made by him to project his income to be even more than that. There was no averment in the petition that the petitioner
was doing any textile business. On the other hand, the only averment made in the petition was that he was doing business (without naming the
business) and also agricultural work and his daily earning was Rs. 200/-. However the monthly income of the respondent/petitioner was given as
Rs. 5,000/-, perhaps taking into account at least five days rest in a month without earning. Contra to the pleading, the petitioner seems to have
chosen to contend that as an agent in a textile shop in Chennai and also as an agent of V.S.E. Gold House, he was having a monthly income of Rs.
6,000/-. He does not speak about any agricultural work by which he was deriving income in consonance with the petition averments. Even the
implied deduction for the rest days without income found in the petition averments has been given a go bye by P.W.1 in his evidence as he has
stated that he was having a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- at Rs. 200/- per day. In addition to the same, the petitioner has chosen to contend that
he visited Malaysia for his textile business and during the said visit he earned a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The said evidence is totally inadmissible as
there is no averment in the petition. Even then the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his evidence that he went to Malaysia on
business tour and he had an income of Rs. 20,000/-, are capable of negativing the said contention of P.W.1.
Ex.P12 is the passport of the respondent/petitioner. It is obvious from the entries made in the passport that he visited Malaysia once. The
VISA was issued on 14.01.2003 to be valid for three months for a single visit alone and in fact he left for Malaysia on 04.03.2000. His
immigration to Malayasia was permitted only as a tourist and specifically not for any employment. What kind of business he was doing during his
visit and what was the income derived from such business has not been substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. To show that the petitioner
had visited Malaysia on business tour, Ex.P13 also has been produced. Ex.P13 is nothing but a pathology report issued by Pathology & Clinical
Laboratory (M) SDN BHD, Melaka. The same will show that he was having some kind of ailment when he visited Malaysia, pursuant to which he
had to undergo a blood test for pathological report. The said documents are not enough to show that he went to Malaysia on a business tour and
he earned anything during such tour in Malaysia. In fact nothing has been mentioned in the petition regarding the income derived by him during his
visit to Malaysia and the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is nothing but an improvement made as a result of an after thought. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was doing business in Malaysia and was
deriving a sizeable amount as income.
In order to show that the petitioner was working as an agent for a textile shop at Chennai, the petitioner has produced Ex.P8 as the Identity
Card issued by the textile shop. The same is an identity card purported to be issued by M/s. Afsara Export & Import, Chennai. No one connected
with the said company has been examined to prove the genuineness of the said identity card. What was the nature of business carried on by
M/s.Afsara Export and Import, Chennai has not been proved by reliable evidence. If at all the petitioner had visited Malaysia as an agent of the
said company, he could not have earned any amount as a profit of his own business. If at all orders were obtained by the respondent/petitioner on
behalf of the said company, the said company would have issued receipts for payment of remuneration or commission for getting such orders. Such
documents have not been produced by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said
document as an evidence of the petitioner''s employment with M/s. Afsara Export and Import, Chennai as its agent.
Exs.P10 and P11 were produced to show that the petitioner was an agent of V.S.E. Gold House, Trichy. Ex.P10 is produced as the identity
card issued by the said business concern. Ex.P11 is produced as a pamphlet printed for the conference of the representatives of V.S.E. Gold
House that was held on 14.09.2002. It is very easy to print such a pamphlet. None of the persons like owner, Director, Manager of V.S.E. Gold
House, Trichy has been examined to prove that the said docuements were issued by the said concern. In case the petitioner was working as an
agent of the said concern V.S.E. Gold House, Trichy, when it had chosen to issue such identify card and also the pamphlets, documents would be
available to show the periodical payments of commission to its agents. No such document has been produced by the respondent/petitioner.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner''s contention that he was deriving income as an agent of V.S.E. Gold
House, Trichy was not substantiated by the petitioner by adducing reliable evidence.
Though the petitioner has stated in his petition that he was doing agricultural work, in his evidence he has omitted to make any reference to the
said averment. It is not his case he was doing agricultural coolie work. On the other hand, there is evidence to the effect that though he underwent
the course leading to the conferment of a degree he did not come out successful. The Tribunal, after considering the totality of the evidence
adduced on the side of the petitioner relating to his avocation and income has arrived at a conclusion that the respondent/petitioner failed to
produce reliable evidence to prove his income. Considering the age of the petitioner, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that any person in the age
group of the petitioner would have had a minimum income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and in the absence of proper evidence on the side of the
petitioner, the said minimum income should be taken as the income of the petitioner. This Court finds no defect or infirmity warranting any
interference with the above said finding of the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the respondent/petitioner would contend that though the finding of the Tribunal regarding the monthly income of the
respondent/petitioner cannot be held to be infirm or defective, the selection of multiplier by the Tribunal is improper and that the Tribunal should
have selected and applied a higher multiplier than 11. According to the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent/ petitioner having fixed
the age of the petitioner to be 26 years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the higher multiplier permissible, namely 18. On the other hand, the
learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was wrongly fixed at 26 years whereas the
documents produced by the petitioner himself show that the petitioner was aged more than 30 years as on the date of accident and that the age of
the respondent/petitioner may be fixed accordingly and the appropriate multiplier may be applied for assessing compensation for the loss of earning
capacity. Even though the learned Counsel for the appellant, at the first instance contended that the application of multiplier method to the case on
hand was improper and lumpsum compensation for the disability should have been awarded, at the latter part of his argument, the learned Counsel
for the appellant conceded that the suitability of either of the method is to be decided by the court based on the facts and circumstances of the case
and that the appellant would be satisfied if the contentions raised by the appellant in other aspects, namely extent of loss of earning capacity, age
and income of the petitioner are taken into consideration. A reference was also made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to a division bench
judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, . In the said judgment a division
bench of this Court has held that the application of multiplier method to injury cases resulting in permanent disability is not altogether ruled out and
that only indiscriminate use of multiplier method without considering the suitability of such method to the particular case alone was held to be
improper. On the other hand, the division bench emphasized the point that the Tribunal/court shall decide the suitability of the multiplier method or
the lumpsum method to the particular case taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, taking into
consideration the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is more beneficial to the injured and more appropriate
to apply the multiplier theory than the lumpsum method for assessing compensation.
We have already seen that the monthly income of the petitioner prior to the age of occurrence was correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.
3,000/-. We have also seen that the permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity caused by the permanent disability could be assessed at
25%. To apply multiplier theory, we have to ascertain the age of the petitioner and then apply an appropriate multiplier. The petitioner, in his
petition has given his age to be about 25 years. Without considering the documentary evidence produced on the side of the petitioner himself, the
Tribunal has erroneously and arbitrarily fixed the age of the petitioner to be 26 years as on the date of accident. Ex.P7 is the identity card issued by
Government Men''s College, Kumbakonam evidencing the fact that the petitioner joined B.Sc. degree course in the year 1993. In the said
document, his date of birth has been noted as 13.05.1973. In the passport marked as Ex.P12, the date of birth of the petitioner in MCOP is given
as 13.05.1973. When such documents of more authenticity regarding date of birth have been produced, the date of birth found in such document
should have been adopted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration such documents and erroneously fixed the
age of the petitioner to be 26 years based on Ex.P2, which is of less evidentiary value than Ex.P12-passport. Therefore, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident should be fixed on the basis of Ex.P12-passport. As per the entries found in
Ex.P12-passport he was born on 13.05.1973. The accident took place on 26.12.2003. Therefore, as on the date of accident he has completed
30� years. Therefore, the petitioner was in the age group of above 30 years and below 36 years. Though the Tribunal has fixed the age of the
petitioner to be 26 years, it has without any basis whatsoever selected and applied ''11'' as the appropriate multiplier. The selection of the multiplier
by the Tribunal is improper and hence this Court comes to the conclusion that higher multiplier, as contended by the learned Counsel for the
respondent/petitioner should have been applied taking note of the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, , in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others
Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Another, . The Hon''ble Supreme Court (Bench consisting
of Justice R.V. Raveendran and L.S. Panta, JJ.) in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, has given an
elaborate guidelines as to the multiplier to be adopted for a person falling under a particular age group. If the same is taken into account, the
appropriate multiplier to be selected for a person falling within the age group of above 30 years and below 36 years shall be 16. Considering the
age of the petitioner, this Court selects 16 to be the appropriate multiplier for assessing compensation for the loss of earning capacity.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses. There is evidence to the effect that the petitioner, at the first
instance took treatment in the Government hospitals. There is no evidence to show that any amount was paid for such medical treatment. Of
course the petitioner has produced two documents as Ex.P5 and Ex.P9 to show that he took treatment in private eye hospitals. Ex.P5 is a
document which shows that the petitioner attended an eye camp arranged by Joseph Eye Hospital, Trichy on 28.09.2004. What kind of treatment
was given to him in the said camp and whether any amount was paid by him, has not been substantiated by evidence. Ex.P9 is the identity card
issued by Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry to the petitioner on 22.12.2004. What was the treatment given to him? What was the expenditure
incurred for the treatment given to him at Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry and Joseph Eye Hospital, Trichy? - There is no evidence. The
petitioner has not produced any receipt or medical bill issued by the said hospitals. The medical bills produced by the petitioner cover only a sum
of Rs. 554.09P. When that being so, it is a mystery how the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 30,000/- as
medical expenses, that too in the absence of any concession extended by the appellant/respondent in this regard. No reason has been assigned by
the Tribunal for arriving at such a conclusion. Even though the documents produced by the petitioner in the form of Ex.P5, cover only a sum of Rs.
554.09P as medical expenses, the learned Counsel for the appellant was fair enough to concede that at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- could have
been incurred by the petitioner and such amount could be awarded as compensation for medical expenses. The learned Counsel for the
respondent/petitioner also concedes that there was no basis for fixing the compensation for medical expenses at Rs. 30,000/- and the same is liable
to be reduced. However, he would make an earnest appeal to the court that the petitioner should not be penalised for his inability to produce
documents evidencing medical expenditure and that considering the nature of injuries, a reasonable amount can be fixed as compensation for
medical expenses. Considering the above representations made on either side, this Court comes to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall
be reasonably to be fixed as compensation for the medical expenses.
In addition to the compensation awarded towards future loss of earning capacity, the petitioner shall also be entitled to compensation for the
actual loss of earning during the course of treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner would have needed at least two months'' rest during which period he would have incurred total loss of earning. Therefore, a sum of Rs.
6,000/- is awarded as compensation for the loss of total income for a period of two months from the date of accident. A Full Bench of this Court
in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Thambi and Others, has held that in case lumpsum compensation is awarded for the permanent
disability it will take into its fold the loss of future earning capacity and loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability in which case,
compensation on the head of permanent disability as such or loss of earning capacity cannot be separately itemised. On the other hand if the
multiplier method is adopted to assess the compensation for the loss of earning capacity, then there shall be no impediment for separately itemising
the compensation for loss of amenities caused by the permanent disability. In this regard, this Court comes to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.
15,000/- shall be awarded as compensation for the loss of amenities and comforts caused by the permanent disability.
For pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which could be marginally increased and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- can be
awarded. For extra nourishment the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, which can reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner has produced
trip sheets covering a sum of Rs. 66.50P alone and included the same in Ex.P6 series. However there is evidence that the petitioner was first
treated at Kumbakonam, then at Thanjavur and subsequently he took treatment at Trichy and Pondicherry. Therefore, at least a minimum of Rs.
5,000/- would have been incurred as travel expenses and for the temporary stay at those places. Thus a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be the
reasonable amount that can be awarded as compensation to the respondent/petitioner. At the cost of repetition, the split up particulars of the total
amount of compensation arrived at above are furnished hereunder.
Total loss of earning from the
date of accident for a period
of two months : Rs. 6,000.00
Loss of future earning capacity
3000 x 12 x 25 x 16/100 : Rs. 1,44,000.00
For Pain and suffering (past,
present and future) : Rs. 15,000.00
Loss of comforts due to the
permanent disability : Rs. 15,000.00
Extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000.00
Transport expenditure and the
expenditure for the temporary
stay at the places of treatment : Rs. 5,000.00
Medical expenses already incurred,
past and to be incurred in future : Rs. 10,000.00
----------------
Total Rs. 2,00,000.00
----------------
The said amount is to be paid by the appellant transport corporation/respondent to the respondent/petitioner as compensation together with
interest from the date of petition till reaslisation. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. No grievance is aired by either
of the parties regarding the rate of interest. Hence, no interference is made regarding the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.
For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the civil miscellaneous appeal shall be allowed in part and the award
of the Tribunal shall be modified by reducing the compensation from Rs. 2,48,200/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and that in all other respects the award of
the Tribunal shall stand confirmed subject to the above said modification. No costs.