K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) THE appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The claimant was a passenger in a car which was hit from behind by a truck belonging to a 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal found the driver-1st respondent was responsible for accident and found the respondents 2 and 3 as owner and insurer respectively as liable for compensation.
(2.) WHILE determining the quantum, the Tribunal took the fact that the claimant was doing a business in poultry farm and an income tax assessee. The Tribunal took the income to be Rs. 1,500/-, provided for a deduction of 1/3rd and adopted a multiplier of 16 to determine the loss of income at Rs. 1,92,000/-. It provided for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering; Rs. 50,000/- for medical treatment; Rs. 15,000/- for attendant charges; Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance charges and the rental for attendant during the time of treatment of hospitalization at Rs. 2,000/- and provided for a total compensation of Rs. 3,19,000/-. This was against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/- for compensation sought. As regards the medical condition of the claimant, the case had been filed when the claimant was still in an unconscious state. The doctor, who had examined him, had certified that he had serious head injuries and had suffered a 100% disability. He had to remain unconscious or semi-conscious for the rest of his life and the evidence was also that he had to be provided with an attendant for the rest of his life. There is nothing to indicate that during the course of trial, his condition has improved or that there is a chance of such improvement. The evidence was that he was an income tax assessee and it is not clear as to how only Rs. 1,500/- was taken as the loss to the income. The evidence was that the business of poultry and egg was closed down after the serious injuries suffered by the petitioner. His wife was also co-passenger and she had made an independent claim as a person, who was paid salary in the business. Since the accident resulted in the year 1987, I take the average income at Rs. 3,000/-, having particular reference to the fact that he was an income tax assessee. The Tribunal was in error in providing for any deduction in a case where the claimant is very much alive and no amount of deduction would have been possible. The entire income loss must have been taken as the multiplicand and the suitable multiplier applicable to the age must have been taken. I would, therefore, provided for loss of income arising on account of the accident to be Rs. 5,76,000/-. The Tribunal has provided for Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and another Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment, which I will retain. The provision for attendant has to be provided for the rest of his life and the evidence was that they had the assistance of an attendant at Rs. 500/-. Providing for an average increase over a period of time, I will take monthly expenses for the attendant at Rs. 750/- and adopt the same multiplier of 16 to provide for a corpus that will allow for payment periodically on monthly basis. The amount shall therefore be Rs. 1,44,000/-. Having regard to the fact that he has to live with a 100% disability for the rest of his life causing enormous hardship to himself and to others even apart from the loss of earning capacity that has resulted in his total loss of business, I would also provide for loss of amenities to life for 100% disability at a further sum of Rs. 2, 50,000/-. In all, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 9,82,000/- which I round off to Rs. 10 lakh.
(3.) THE amount in excess of what has been awarded already by the Tribunal shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be on respondents 2 and 3 as already determined by the Tribunal. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed on the above terms.;