AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. P. Devadass, J.—This insurer''s appeal is on quantum.
The first respondent, a practising Advocate sustained injuries in a road accident on 17.10.2011. The Tribunal found that it is because of the driver of the vehicle, which has been insured with the appellant.
The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.2 and his disability Certificate Ex.P.12, wherein its is stated that he had suffered 35% disability and the Tribunal determined the disability at 22%, applied multiplier method, accordingly determined the compensation towards disability and towards other heads, totally it is Rs.4,00,000/-.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant in the facts and circumstances, the disability determined is on the higher side, further it is not a fit case for invoking multiplier method. The result is awarding excessive compensation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the evidence on record discloses that the claimant has suffered and his spinal cord got affected. The claimant is a practising Advocate, both on the civil and criminal side and he is 48 years old and commanded considerable volume of work, considerable number of clients. Because of the injury, now he could not function as before. The Tribunal also has taken only Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income. What was granted by the Tribunal is very less.
I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned award of the Tribunal.
The controversy is mainly on the adoption of multiplier method. Application of multiplier arises when the injury of such a nature, it has resulted in reducing one''s earning capacity or functional activities, and his physical activities. Now, in this case, P.W.2 has certified the disability to the extent of 35% and also deposed. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of P.W.2, his cross-examination. It has also referred the claimant''s suffering in his spinal card. In such circumstances, the Tribunal determined his disability at 22%.
The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 discloses the aftermath of impairment of his spinal card, its consequent effects on his regular activities. In such circumstances, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method. We concur with that. Further, Rs.10,000/- p.m. for an Advocate of so much standing cannot be said to be abnormal. As regards, other heads, reasonable amount alone has been awarded by the Tribunal. Ultimately, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is neither more nor less but just, fair and reasonable.
In the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount, less amount, if any already deposited, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn on filing appropriate application.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.4 of 2014 is closed.