ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) NEW India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the appellant was liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an automobile accident. The accident took place on 14.12.1997 at about 3.10 a.m. It was claimed by the claimant that he sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KL-7Q/9101) driven by the respondent No. 2. The claimant's stand was that he was travelling as a pillion rider. Total compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 was claimed. After considering the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (in short the 'MACT') awarded Rs. 4,68,825 with 9% interest from the date of application till payment. The figure was arrived at in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_1801_AIR(SCW)_2005Html1.htm In appeal filed by the insurer-appellant the amount granted for permanent disability was deleted. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the age of the injured was about 37 years and a multiplier of 16 was adopted on the ground that there was permanent disability and, therefore, deprivation of contribution is on the higher side. Strong reliance is placed 1994AIR SCW1356 SC 1631 on the decisions of this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.)and other 1994 (2) SCC 176; and U.P. Srate Riad Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (1996 (4) SCC 362) to contend that the multiplier is on the higher side. It is also submitted that whatever be the earning, a portion of it is spent for personal expenditure and normally 1/3rd deduction is made therefrom. But in the instant case after taking into account the fact that the income of the injured was Rs. 18,000/- per year, the multiplier of 16 has been applied without making any deduction.
(3.) IN response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the injured has totally crippled and has been almost rendered immobile by the 100% disability. Even at the time of discharge he was not in a conscious condition. Taking into account this factor the quantum as awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side. What would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula by universal application. It would depend upon circumstances of each case. In the instant case the claimant was nearly 37 years of age and was married. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, 1/3rd deduction has to be made for personal expenditure.;