- (1.) THIS appeal is focused as against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2003 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Sivagangai.
(2.) HEARD both sides. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated 01.09.2005 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five Thousand Only) under the following sub-heads: For loss of income Rs. 4,000/- For Permanent Disability Rs.53,760/- For Extra Nourishment Rs. 2,240/- For Pain and Sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.65,000/- Animadverting upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal relating to the injuries sustained by a lady, this appeal has been filed on various grounds; the pith and marrow of it would run thus: The Tribunal without any basis simply awarded a sum of Rs.53,760/- (Rupees fifty three thousand seven hundred and sixty only) by applying erroneously the multiplier method. The compensation awarded under various other sub heads are also on the higher side and accordingly it has to be reduced.
(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded 'just compensation'? THE point: The learned counsel for the appellant/ Transport corporation appropriately and appositely by placing reliance on the catena of decisions would develop his arguments to the effect that in matters of this nature, so to say, in connection with the grievous injury sustained by the claimant, multiplier system should not be applied, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would echo the cri de coeur of the claimant and submit that even the compensation awarded is on the lower side. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and more specifically as per the decision cited infra, the multiplier method applied by the Tribunal in this case is erroneous. (i) This Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruchengode v. Veluchamy and another reported in 2005(1)CTC-38 held that multiplier method can be adopted only in certain cases where the injury resulted in making the injured to lead only a vegetative life. An excerpt from it would run thus: "The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case 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 extend 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 till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even, if 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". ;