Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4579
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus
Murugan & Another
C.M.A.No.3892 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on: 11-12-2008
For the Appellant:K. Padmanabhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Kulandaivelu, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method for calculating compensation in motor accident claims, based on the nature of injuries, disability, and impact on the claimant's earning capacity.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Second Schedule - Division Bench Judgment - Multiplier Method
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a motor accident where the claimant, a 34-year-old porter, suffered grievous injuries and claimed compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the driver of the lorry negligent and fixed the appellant Insurance Corporation's liability to compensate the claimant. The only contention raised on appeal was the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of injuries, treatment, disability, and occupation of the claimant to determine the appropriate multiplier for calculating the compensation. It referred to a Division Bench Judgment to establish the principles for applying the multiplier method and concluded that a multiplier of 14, instead of 17 adopted by the Tribunal, was appropriate. The total award was modified to Rs. 3,51,513 with confirmed interest at 7.5%.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the quantum of compensation, specifically the application of the multiplier method for calculating the loss of earning capacity due to disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles established in the Division Bench Judgment, which emphasized that the multiplier method should consider factors such as the nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured, and the impact on employment or earning power. The court considered the claimant's occupation, age, and the grievous nature of the injury to determine the appropriate multiplier.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed in part, reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 3,51,513 and confirming the 7.5% interest. The appellant was granted four weeks to deposit the award amount, and there was no order as to cost.
1. The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the award 24. 2008 made in MCOP.No.245 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Sankari.
2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 14. 2007. The injured claimant Murugan aged 34 years, Porter by occupation travelling on a two wheeler was hit by a lorry and in that accident he suffered grievous injuries. He was initially treated at Salem Government Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Natham Hospital, Salem and was treated as inpatient for a period of one month. In that accident, according to the claim petition, he suffered following injuries.
(i) Grievous injury to the left leg, thigh,hip, spinal chord resulting in fracture in many places.
(ii) Lacerated wound in the left hip and thigh
(iii) Abrasion in left supra occipital area
According to the injured claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- as Porter every month. He claimed a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation.
3. In support of the claim, the following persons are examined as witnesses. The claimant was examined as PW1 Doctor was examined as PW2, Exs. A1 to A13 were marked. Ex.A-1 is the photocopy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is the Accident Register, Ex.A-3 is the copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.A.4 is the copy of Insurance for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-27-E-0779, Ex.A5 is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, Ex.A6 is the copy of charge sheet, Ex.A7 is the copy of Rough Sketch, EX.A8 series are the medical bills for over one lakh, EX.A9 is the the discharge summary, EX.A10 is the Scan report, EX.A11 is the Disability Certificate, Ex.A12 is the X ray, EX.A13 is the receipt for X-ray taken.
4. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who is responsible for the accident and injury and consequential liability fixed on the appellant Insurance Corporation to compensate the claimants is not in dispute and the same is confirmed.
5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of compensation.
6. The nature of injuries suffered by the injured claimant has been discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award in answer to point No.2. As recorded by the Tribunal, the injured claimant has suffered fracture of several bones in the following areas, viz., left thigh, left hip region, spinal column. He was treated at Government Hospital, Salem and given first aid. Thereafter, he was taken to Natham Hospital. A 34 years old injured claimant was in the hospital for more than one month. Four surgical procedures were done to the thigh area and to the hip region. Plates and screws were fixed. Consequent to the injury, he also suffered urinary problem. He stated that in spite of medical treatment, he is unable to get back to his normal life. He cannot attend to the call of nature without the support of another person. Because of the injury to his spinal region, he cannot work and earn as before. The doctor P.W.2 stated that the injuries are serious in nature and the bones of the hip region is mal united after the fracture. There is also inflammation in the bone area. Consequent to the injury, the claimant finds difficult to flex the legs and therefore, disability is assessed at 40% by the doctor P.W.2 under Ex.A11. The Tribunal, however, reduced the disability to 34%. The Tribunal taking note of the aforesaid injuries, the period of treatment given, the disability assessed, the age and occupation of the injured claimant, adopted multiplier method. The Tribunal fixed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month and by taking multiplier of 17, for the disability assessed at 34% granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,08,080/-(Rs.3,000 x 12 x 17 x 34% = Rs.2,08,080) towards loss of earning capacity due to disability. In addition to that, the Tribunal granted compensation on various other heads including the compensation for medical expenses met. In all the Tribuna
