AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 13.3.2006 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 773 of 2003
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.
It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 1.2.2003. The injured claimant, was travelling in the appellant''s transport
corporation bus. Due to the rash and negligent driving, it is stated that the claimant Murugesan was thrown out of the bus and sustained grievous
injuries. He therefore, filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.
In support of the claim, the injured claimant was examined as P.W.1. One Sivakumar was examined as P.W.2. Dr. Raveendran was examined
as P.W.3. The following documents were marked on behalf of the claimant:
Ex.P-1 is the FIR,
Ex.P-2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report,
Ex.P-3 is the charge sheet,
Ex.P-4 is the Accident Register copy,
Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate,
Ex.P-6 is the photocopy of the transfer certificate,
Ex.P-7 is the disability certificate and
Ex.P-8 is the X-ray.
No document was filed on behalf of the appellant transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in this case held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus, the
respondent/claimant was thrown out of the bus. The conductor also did not take proper care with regard to the safety of the passengers and
should have refused to accommodate more passengers than permitted. The driver should have taken more caution if the bus is over loaded. In
such circumstances, the Tribunal held that the injury caused due to the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
appellant transport corporation bus.
The doctor under Ex.P-7, assessed the disability at 35%. The Tribunal, however, fixed the disability at 20%. By applying the multiplier of 16,
the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:
Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal
1 Loss of income in future Rs. 48,000/-
2 Medical expenses, attender
charges and transport expenses Rs. 10,000/-
3 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-
4 Special compensation for a Plus
2 student, who suffered hip injury Rs. 10,000/-
__________________
Total Rs. 73,000/-
The first contention of the appellant''s counsel is that the claimant, a boy aged about 18 years, was travelling carelessly in the appellant transport
corporation bus and was therefore, thrown out and he sustained injuries. The driver is not at fault.
The Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the award has clearly comes to the conclusion that the bus was overcrowded. The driver and the conductor
failed to take proper care to avoid overcrowding of the bus which resulted in the injured claimant being thrown out of the bus due to the sudden
stopping of the vehicle. In the absence of oral or documentary evidence in support of the appellant''s contention, the finding of negligence on the
part of the driver of the appellant''s transport corporation bus stands confirmed and the liability on the appellant as well.
As far as the compensation is concerned, the contention of the appellant''s counsel is that the Tribunal adopted multiplier method to grant
compensation. In paragraph 7 of the award, it is stated that the claimant suffered seven injuries and that is supported by Ex.P-4 accident register.
Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate which discloses fracture in superior and inferior pubic rami. The injured was in hospital for more than 50 days. The
fact remains that after the treatment, the injured boy has recovered to some extent though not completely. The doctor assessed the disability at
35% under Ex.P-7. The Tribunal, however, has taken the disability at 20% and no reason has been given for it. Based on notional income at Rs.
15,000/- per annum, by adopting 16 multiplier for the 18 years old injured boy, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 48,000/- as compensation
toward loss of income in future and that is disputed by the appellant.
In this case, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be justified in view of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, .
The Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, sets out the
parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:
The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(a) In all cases 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 injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely
and has to be idle for the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earnings may be ascertained by applying the ''multiplier method'' as
provided under the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2) Even 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.
In view of the above decision and the facts and circumstances of this case and the oral and documentary evidence on record considered by the
Tribunal, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal is not justified. The Tribunal, however, has without any just or reasonable cause reduced
the disability to 20% from 35%. The Tribunal has granted a meagre sum towards medical expenses, attender charges and transport expenses.
Even the sum of Rs. 5,000/- granted for pain and suffering is paltry.
The injured claimant was 18 years old plus 2 student. He has lost his valuable time in view of the accident and was unable to go to school.
Even for the disability assessed at 35%, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- at least. The balance of Rs. 8,000/- can be adjusted towards pain
and suffering and for extra nourishment which has not been awarded.
Considering all these aspects, the nature of injuries, the age of the claimant, who was studying plus 2 at the time of accident, the compensation
granted by the Tribunal does not require further reduction. Appellant has not made out a case for reduction of the compensation including interest
at 7.5% as the accident happened on 1.2.2003 and the award was passed on 13.3.2006.
Finding no merit, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time
to deposit the award amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the award amount. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.