The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method to calculate compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, taking into account the claimant's qualifications and future prospects.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

The appeal in C.M.A.No.1974 of 2006 is preferred by the State Transport Corporation against the award of compensation of Rs.24,59,700/-in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2940 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) for the injuries sustained by the Respondent/Claimant in a road traffic accident on 25. 1999.

2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimant has filed Cross Objection No.26 of 2006.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25. 1999 at about 9.30 a.m, when the Claimant was riding on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.DL 45-R-9346 from Nandhampakkam to Madras and nearing the Butt Road Bus Stop, the Respondents driver drove the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-23-N.1035 from Vellore to Madras in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Claimants vehicle and as a result, the claimant sustained head injuries and admitted in the Hospital. The Respondent has been working as Accounts Executive in Country Consumer Finance Service, Chennai. Because of the head injuries, mental faculties and physiological functioning of the Claimant is affected. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Claimant through his mother Bhargavi filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. TheTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (in short, "TNSTC") resisted the Petition contending that the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-23-N-1035, which was on its trip from Vellore to Chennai, was observing all the rules and regulations of the road and when it was nearing St.Thomas Mount at Butt Road, the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.DL 45-R-9348 came from behind and when tried to overtake the Corporation bus by entering through the space on the left side, the Claimant fell down from the two wheeler and sustained injuries and the bus was immediately stopped.

5. According to the Corporation, it was no way responsible for the accident and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation. The TNSTC has also inter alia raised objection as to the age, status and income of the claimant and pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and on the higher side.

6. To substantiate the claimants claim, mother of the Claimant was examined as P.W.1. The representative of the employer Sunil Kesavan was examined as P.W.2 and Dr.Diwakar who issued Ex.P.20 disability certificate was examined as P.W.5. That apart P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 viz., Ravi Sankar, Veeraraghavan and Kannan were also examined. Exs.P.1 to P.21 were marked. On the side of Corporation, the driver, who was on duty in the bus involved in the accident, was examined as R.W.1.

7. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Based upon Ex.P.20 and evidence of P.W.5 Dr.Diwakar, the Tribunal held that the Claimant is immobilised for the rest of his life and assessed the permanent disability at 100 percent and awarded compensation of Rs.24,59,700/- as under:

Transport charges : Rs. 15,000/-

Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000/-

Disability (100%) : Rs. 1,50,000/-

Loss of income and : Rs. 21,60,000/-

earning power

(10,000 x 12 x 18)

Attender Charges : Rs. 1,00,000/-

Physician Charges : Rs. 14,700/-

Total : Rs.24,59,700/-

8. Learned counsel for Appellant Corporation contended that the Claimant drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner without valid driving licence and the Tribunal ought to have fixed contributory negligence on the part of Claimant. It was further argued that the treatment records were marked through mother of the Claimant without examining the author of the documents and the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier method in determining the compensation. It was further submitted that the quantum of compensation of Rs.24,59,700/-awarded is very much excessive and on the higher side.

9. Drawing our attention to the report received