The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method in assessing the loss of income in cases of permanent disability, as supported by various Supreme Court decisions.

1. The averments contained in the claim petition in brief are as follows:

On 111. 2001 at about 8.00 p.m. when the claimant was riding his Hero Honda Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.TN 36 Z 8178 on the left extreme side of the North-south Mettupalayam-Sathyamangalam Road near Ammanpudur, the first respondent drove the Yamaha Motor Cycle with Registration No.TN 15 Y 3353, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimants motor cycle, by means of which he fell down and suffered serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital and was treated as inpatient. Because of various fractures and other injuries, he was permanently disabled from doing his business. He is Advocate by profession. From his profession he was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was claimed as compensation.

2. In the counter filed by the third respondent, the following is stated:

The accident did not occur due to the first respondent. The petitioner has not impleaded the insurer of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle driven by the second respondent as a party. The petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and the petitioner has no valid driving licence. The occupation, age and income of the petitioner are denied. The compensation claimed is excessive and disproportionate. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

3. After analysing the materials and oral evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, fixed liability on the first respondent and directed all the three respondents to pay compensation of Rs.4,85,000/- jointly and severally. Aggrieved against the award, the third respondent viz., the appellant is before this Court.

4. In the F.I.R., Ex.A-1, it is stated that on 111. 2001 at about 8.00 p.m. while the claimant was driving his motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 36 Z 8178 near Ammanpudur, a Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing registration No. TN 15 Y 3353 driven by the first respondent rashly, dashed against the motor cycle driven by the claimant, by means of which he fell down and received serious head injuries besides other injuries all over his body; that he was removed to a private hospital at Sirumugai and thereafter he was taken to K.G. Hospitals, Coimbatore. The Tribunal after analysing the oral evidence on record as to the accident, anchored the responsibility on the first respondent for having caused the accident. There is not much debate before this Court as to this portion of award, as regards the fastening of liability. But insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and the manner in which it approached the issue, have been much assailed by the appellants side.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is on two folds. One is the Tribunal has wrongly carried itself upon the oral evidence tendered by the doctor P.W.2, who is not at all a specialist in Orthopedics nor Otorhinogology and his evidence would not be taken on its face value and by means of appreciating his evidence as it stands, the appellant is much prejudiced. The next limb of contention is that the Tribunal should not have adopted the multiplier formula because there is no evidence on record that the claimant was completely disabled from taking up his profession in future by means of injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. As far as the appreciation of evidence adduced by the doctor/P.W.2 is concerned, it is more appropriate to refer various documents which sufficiently and elaborately highlighted the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. To begin with, Ex.A-2 Wound Certificate shows that the claimant sustained fractures on skull bone, meta Carpal bones and nasal bones. Nextly, Ex.A-8, Discharge Summary issued by K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore, would further clarify the nature of injuries and the particulars of treatment offered to the claimant. The following are the injuries as mentioned in Ex.A-2:

"1. Laceration above right eye-brow about 6 c.m.

Vertically. Exposin