United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Ganesan & Others

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records carefully.

The appellant / Insurance Company has filed this appeal questioning the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal for 70% disability suffered by the 1st respondent / claimant.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the claimant did not suffer by functional disability and therefore, there is no loss of earning capacity due to the accident and hence, the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant would submit that as the first respondent / claimant is suffered by 70% disability, now he could not do salesman work and therefore, the multiplier method adopted by the Tribunal need not be interfered with. He would further submit that though the first respondent / claimant was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- at the time of the accident, the Tribunal has taken only a meagre sum of Rs.3600/- as monthly income. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2011, the Tribunal could have taken a sum of Rs.6000/- as notional income. If the Tribunal has taken into account Rs.6000/- as notional income, then the award would be more. However, he has stated that as he did not file appeal, the award passed by the Tribunal may be confirmed. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

It is seen from the record that the first respondent / claimant was earlier working as a Sales Assistant in a TASMAC Shop. As per Ex.P18 - Disability Certificate, the first respondent / claimant is suffered by 70% partial permanent disability. P.W.3 - Dr.Ramaguru has stated in his evidence that the first respondent / claimant has got restrictions of movement and his right leg is shortened by 3 c.m. and the fracture on the right leg and right thigh are not united and therefore, another surgery is required. He would further submit that the first respondent / claimant is unable to walk without support and squatting and cross leg sitting is not possible for him and therefore, he has given certificate to the effect that the claimant has sustained 70% partial permanent disability.

In view of the above and also considering the fact that the first respondent / claimant could not do work as did earlier, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier method and the same need not be interfered with.

In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the 1st respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, to be withdrawn with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. No costs.