AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass
The Insurance Company mainly questions the quantum of compensation granted to the first respondent. The claimant was awarded Rs.
2,16,000/- towards loss of income and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards property damage.
According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the claimant is a non-earning member - a ''Homemaker'', however, the Tribunal adopted a
monthly income as yardstick. Further, in the facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for adopting the multiplier method. A second-hand car
suffered damage. Its value itself is Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal granted Rs. 1,50,000/-. Further, no proper person has been examined to
speak about the estimate and the receipts. The Tribunal granted excessive compensation.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant had suffered 36% disability. The Doctor''s evidence and
the evidence of P.W. 1 discloses the continued effect of the disability on the claimant. Based on the evidence adduced, the Tribunal properly
assessed the property damage.
I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record and the impugned Judgment.
First respondent, her husband and the children have sustained multiple injuries in a road accident. The car, in which, they have traveled also
suffered damage. The appellant questions the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant/Krishnaveni (P.W.1) for personal injuries and for
property damage.
First we will consider compensation for personal injuries. P.W. 4 assessed P.W. 1''s disability at 36% and issued her Ex. P. 56 disability
certificate. The Tribunal taken her monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and applied the multiplier ''15'' and calculated the disability compensation
accordingly.
Invariably, multiplier method cannot be invoked in every case. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Applying the multiplier
method will not be a problem, if it is a fatal case. Problem arises only in injury cases. For all injury cases, invariably multiplier method cannot be
and should not be adopted. If the effect of the disability on the injured is continuous and it is in the nature of either resulting in reduction of earning
capacity or in the full use of the limbs, it may be a case for invocation of multiplier method. It is to award just compensation.
Now, in this case, P.W. 4 examined P.W. 1-Krishnaveni. P.W. 4 noted the multiple injuries sustained by her. She had sustained injuries in her
hip and also at vulnerable parts of her body, which are crucial for the proper and efficient functioning of her body. This aspect has been referred to
by P.W. 4 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W. 4 is elaborate as to these aspects. Because of the disability, she could not use her hands and legs
as before. Merely because she is a ''Homemaker'' and a non-earning member, it cannot be said that no monetary yardstick could be adopted to
assess the just compensation payable to her. Considering her disability, extent of it, its continued effect on her and restricted functioning of her legs
to carryout her routine domestic chores, we cannot fault with the Tribunal in adopting the multiplier method.
Now, we will consider the damages for the property damage. The car damaged in the accident is a Maruthi Esteem car. P.W. 1 purchased it as
a second-hand car. Rs. 2,40,000/- has been claimed for repairing the damage. The Tribunal considered its value at Rs. 2,00,000/-, deducted Rs.
50,000/- towards depreciation and awarded her Rs. 1,50,000/- as property damage.
The said valuation is not the valuation of the claimant. It is an hypothetical value considered by the Tribunal. Ex. P. 21 is the estimate of
expenditure to repair the damaged car. Ex. P. 22 is the stamped receipts for the payment of repair charges. Of course, the person who issued it
has not been examined. It is a form of documentary evidence. It has been produced through witness Krishnaveni. She has been subjected to
elaborate cross-examination. The Tribunal did not say that it is concocted and created for the purpose. There is nothing to doubt its credibility. In
the circumstances, non-examination of the person, who had issued Ex. P22 cannot be a ground to throw away the receipts. Considering the oral
and documentary evidence, the assessment of property damage cannot be faulted. On the whole, the assessment of compensation does not
appears to be neither low nor high. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award of the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the entire amount has
been deposited by the appellant, the claimant/first respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn.
No costs.