Point of Law: Court cannot find any anomaly with the finding of the Tribunal as regards functional disability at 15%.

JUDGMENT :

Both the claimant and 3rd respondent/Insurance Company are in appeal from the award dated 22.11.2012 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(M.V) No.1531/2007.

2. The appeal first above referred is preferred by the Insurer and the second, by the claimant/injured. The accident took place on 27.04.2007, when the Scooter driven by the claimant was rammed by a bus, driven by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The claimants suffered substantial injuries. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the claimant, besides examining PW1. Certificate from the Medical Board, Ext.C1, was also marked. No evidence, oral or documentary, whatsoever, was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and granted a total compensation of Rs.5,54,548/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company was directed to effect payment on behalf of the 1st respondent/owner.

3. Heard Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in M.A.C.A. 688/2013 and Smt.P.S.Geetha Kumari, the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.216/2015. Perused the records.

4. In M.A.C.A.No.688/2013, the appellant/ Insurance Company (3rd respondent before the Tribunal) essentially contended that as per the evidence adduced, the claimant/injured has not suffered any loss of income on account of the disability, wherefore, the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation for permanent earning disability, reckoning Rs.1,500/- per month as the diminished salary for a future period of 9 years. The earning disability of 15% found by the Tribunal was also assailed, especially in the context of reckoning the same for a period of 5 years, post retirement. It was also contended that grant of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation of continuing and permanent disability, over and in addition to Rs.1,98,000/- as compensation for loss of earning power and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities, is grossly illegal.

5. Whereas, in M.A.C.A.No.216/2015, the appellant/claimant would contend that the Tribunal seriously erred in applying the split multiplier method frowned upon by the Honourable Supreme Court time and again. The finding of the Tribunal as 15% functional disability, as against the 44% neurological disability assessed by the Medical Board, was also assailed. It was urged that the impact of the disability in the life of the claimant, especially in the context of 'loss of amenities and conveniences' and also hardship caused to the claimant, was not properly addressed by the Tribunal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court will first address the issue of split multiplier being applied by the Tribunal in the given facts. Based on the evidence tendered by PW1, one of the Directors in the hospital, where the claimant is working as a Pharmacist, the Tribunal reckoned a diminution of Rs.1,500/- in the monthly salary of the claimant. The Tribunal also reckoned the functional disability at 15%, based on the 44% neurological disability assessed by the Medical Board. Accordingly, the monetary loss, on account of disability was calculated by splitting the multiplier of 14' into 9' and 5', the former for the period upto retirement, and the later, post retirement. For the period upto retirement, the diminution in the monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- was reckoned, to which the multiplier 9' was applied and for the period post retirement, a notional income of Rs.4,000/- was taken, to which the multiplier 5' was applied.

7. According to the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in M.A.C.A. No.216/2015), the method adopted by the Tribunal is surely impermissible, going by the j