IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the multiplier method is essential for calculating compensation in personal injury cases, ensuring just compensation for future needs and losses.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance company questioning the Award and Decree dated 17.11.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 368 of 2011 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts so far:

Appellant is the Insurance company. The Claimant, who was working in the Railways for the injuries received by him in a motor accident that occurred on 18.01.2011. According to the claimant, on 18.01.2011 at about 7.30 a.m. while the claimant was coming on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AC 2888 from Vijayawada to his house, near Manipal Hospital Centre, Tadepalli, a lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 9126 driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the petitioner sustained serious injuries and his right leg was amputated almost upto the groin area. The claimant was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital, Kanuru, Vijayawada. A case under section 337 I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 45 years and his salary was Rs.26,570/-. A compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- was sought by him.

4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the lorry and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance company filed its usual formatted counter denying every aspect of the claim petition.

5. In the course of examination on behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. Exs.X.1 to X.5 were also marked.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-16-W-9126 and caused injuries to the petitioner Gurram Naga Raju?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, from whom and at what rate?

3. To what relief?

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation.

8. Heard Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siva Prasad Katakamsetty, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

9. Scope of Appeal: There is no dispute about the manner of accident, medical expenses incurred by claimant and extent of amputation suffered by the claimant. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the methodology of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is sustainable?

10. Arguments: Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant was an employee of the South Central Railways and there is no loss of employment and the Tribunal could not have granted compensation under the head “loss of income.” It was contended that the Tribunal awarded compensation applying the multiplier method which is applicable only in case of death. According to the counsel for the appellant, the medical expenses would have been reimbursed to the claimant as he is an employee of the South Central Railways. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was her contention that though the amputation of the right leg of the claimant is a fact, but that cannot be treated as 100% disablement for claiming compensation from the employer.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Om Const. v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2023) ACJ 595 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adopted multiplier method while awarding compensation to an individual, who had suffered injuries. It was contended that the condition of the claimant is such that it has to be considered in a sympathetic way and the normal prosthetic legs could not fit the claimant d