AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Sudhakar, J.—Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation is on appeal challenging the award dated 28.11.2006 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 428 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Gingee.
The only contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
The finding of negligence and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant and the same is confirmed.
It is a case of injury. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accident in this case happened on 23.6.2004. According to the claim, the injured claimant Rajamanickam, aged 40 years, said to be an agriculturist, was travelling as a passenger in the bus belonging to the appellant transport corporation, which capsized. In that accident, he suffered grievous injuries resulting in fracture of the spinal cord and he also suffered other injuries. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Tindivanam and it is stated that he was in hospital for a period of six months. A sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was claimed as compensation stating that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month at the time of accident.
In support of the claim, the injured claimant examined himself as P.W.2 and one doctor Sekar was examined as P.W.3. P.W.1 is another claimant. On behalf of the claimant in this case, the following documents were marked:
Ex.P-1 is the copy of F.I.R. dated 30.6.2004,
Ex.P-7 is the copy of accident register dated 26.12.2004 given to the claimant,
Ex.P-8 is the discharge summary given in the Tindivanam Government Hospital,
Exs.P-9 and 10 are the bills for getting treatment from Dr. Sekar,
Ex.P-11 series are the medical bills,
Ex.P-12 is the disability certificate dated 21.8.2006 assessing disability at 25% and
Ex.P-13 is the X-Ray.
On behalf of the appellant, respondent before the Tribunal, one Thiru Ponnusamy, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. No document was marked before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant transport corporation.
Considering the age, occupation, income and nature of injury suffered, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for disability assessed at 25% and for two simple injuries, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was granted and also on other heads. In all, the Tribunal granted Rs. 1,47,239/- with 7.5% interest as follows:
Sl. No. Head Amount granted by the Tribunal 1 Disability at 25% Rs. 75,000/- 2 Two simple injuries Rs. 6,000/- 3 Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- 4 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 24,000/- 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 15,000/- 6 Medical expenses Rs. 2,239/- Total Rs. 1,47,239/-
The appeal is filed that the sum of Rs. 75,000/- granted for 25% disability is on the higher side. Therefore, the quantum of compensation has to be reduced.
This Court is unable to accept the contention of the appellant''s counsel for reduction in the quantum of compensation for the following reasons:
(i) The injured claimant is an agriculturist and the income fixed at Rs. 4,000/- is not in dispute. The accident in this case, happened in the year 2004.
(ii) The nature of injuries suffered is a fracture of spinal cord and other injuries. Claimant was in hospital for a period of 6 months. Therefore due to the injuries, supported by the evidence of doctor P.W.3, his earning capacity will be seriously affected. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Officer Vs. Veluchamy and Another, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 11 of the decision sets out the parameters as to when multiplier method should be followed:
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.
The claimant suffered fracture of the spinal cord and since his occupation needs physical strength which is lost due to the grievous injury, the multiplier method can be adopted. However, the Tribunal has not chosen to do so. If multiplier method is adopted, the compensation will be much higher. Even if "10" multiplier is adopted, in a case of injury, the loss of earning capacity will be Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x 10 x 25% = Rs. 1,20,000/-). The Tribunal granted Rs. 75,000/- only under the caption "disability assessed at 25%", which is on the lower side.
(iii) Further, no amount has been granted for attender charges and for transport expenses.
(iv) Since the injured claimant was in the hospital for 6 months, the compensation granted under others heads are appropriate.
Considering all these factors, this Court is unable to find any good reason to interfere with the compensation and reduce the same including the interest at 7.5% as the accident happened in the year 2004 and the award was passed in the year 2006.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Counsel for the appellant prays eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is granted. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.