AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.—The appeal is preferred by the claimant against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.02.2006 made in MCOP No. 346 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Palani.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The injured-Manoharan met with motor traffic accident that took place 26.10.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. The injured was travelling in an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. TN-57-Z-9191 from Kodumudi to Ottanchathram. The first Respondent is the owner of the car. When the car was coming near Eswaran Kovil in the Vellakovil-Moolanoor Road, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a roadside bore-well pipe. Due to the said impact, the front side glass of the car broke into pieces and the glass pieces went into the eyes of the injured The claimant also sustained multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. The car was insured with the second Respondent / Insurance Company who resisted the claim.
On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car belonging to the first Respondent?
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so to what extent?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car belonging to the first Respondent and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition. The details of the compensation are as follows:
Rupees Medical expenses 4,000/-
Loss due to 100% disability 2,00,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period 12,000/- Grievous injuries and Pain and Suffering 20,000/- Expenses incurred in the hospital 10,000/- Attendant Charges 10,000/- _________________ 2,56,000/- _________________
Aggrieved by that award, the Appellant / claimant has filed the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant /claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded a very low and meagre sum of compensation and it is without any basis and justification. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants. The Tribunal has not considered the relevant materials and also not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. Hence the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and this is a fit case for enhancement.
Learned Counsel for the second Respondent /
Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the materials and evidence on record and awarded the compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
Heard the counsel and perused the materials available on record. On the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P16 were marked.
On the side of the Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is the Doctor. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car belonging to the first Respondent. It is a question of fact and it is based on valid materials and evidence. Hence the same is confirmed.
The claimant was 35 years old at the time of accident. He is a mason. He claimed that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. In his evidence, it is stated that only the driver of the car caused the accident. It is also stated that the driver of the car was charge-sheeted by Moolanoor Police Station, Erode in Crime No. 163 of 2000. Further it is stated in his evidence that he lost the eye sight and also sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately he was taken to the Christian Fellowship Hospital, Ottanchathram and later he was referred to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai for better treatment. P.W.2 is the Doctor, who is an Opthalmologist. In his evidence, it is stated that both the eyes of the claimant have been completely damaged and he lost his eye sight. Ex.P14 and Ex.P16 are the Disability Certificates. Ex.P7 is the Medical Certificate issued by Aravind Hospital, Madurai. Ex.P2 is the Wound Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant lost his 100% eye sight, and awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss due to 100% disability. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, , the Division Bench of this Court has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of adopting multiplier method, precisely in the case of permanent disability, which reads as follows:
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 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 the 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 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.
The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Chief Law Officer v. M. Pentaiah Chary 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 , held as follows:
We therefore, fail to visualize that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted.
We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum Compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefore there must exist strong circumstances.
Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgments, I am of the view that, in the present case, the loss of income should be computed on the basis of multiplier method. As per the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages that should be taken is Rs. 3,000/- per month. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, it works out to Rs. 2,000/-. After taking into consideration the age of the injured claimant, the correct multiplier that should be adopted is 15. If 15 multiplier is adopted the loss due to 100% disability works out to Rs. 3,60,000/-(Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 15). In this case, there is no dispute that the claimant lost both of his eye-sight. Therefore, it would definitely affect 100% of his earning capacity. Hence, the loss due to 100% disability stands modified to Rs. 3,60,000/-instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards this head is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards grievous injuries and pain and suffering. In the present case, the claimant has lost both of his eyes and also sustained multiple injuries all over the body and took treatment in the hospital. Therefore, the amount awarded towards these heads is very low. It would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards grievous injuries and pain and suffering, as against the sum of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.P8 are the series of medical bills. The actual amount of medical bills works out to Rs. 4,823/-. Hence it would be reasonable to award Rs. 5,000/- towards this head. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the amount awarded towards this head is low. Hence, it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 12,500/- towards this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards expenses incurred in the hospital. Learned Counsel on both the sides have agreed that the Tribunal has actually awarded this amount towards extra nourishment and transport expenses. There is no dispute that the injured was in the hospital and hence certainly he would have incurred certain expenditure towards transport and also he would have taken some nutritious food to quickly recover from the illness. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10000/- awarded towards expenses incurred in the hospital, is actually awarded towards extra nourishment and transport expenses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- towards these heads is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and future prospects. The age of the injured was 35 years old at the time of accident. After taking into consideration the age of the injured and the fact that he had lost both of his eye-sight, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities and future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded interest rate at 6; p.a., from the date of petition. Taking into consideration the date of accident, date of award and also the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation are as under:
Rupees Medical expenses 5,000/-
Loss due to 100% disability 3,60,000/- Loss of income during the treatment period 12,000/-
Grievous injuries and Pain and Suffering 25,000/- Extra nourishment and transport expenses 10,000/-
Attendant Charges 12,500/-
Loss of amenities and future prospects 25,000/- _______________ 4,49,500/- _______________
Rounded off to... 4,50,000/-
Less: Amount awarded by the Tribunal 2,56,000/- ________________ 1,94,000/- ________________
For the enhanced compensation, the claimant is entitled for an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.
Under the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. The second Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,94,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of the same, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application.
With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.