The judgment establishes the application of the multiplier method and principles governing assessment of damages in personal injury cases, emphasizing the need for substantial compensation to compensate for loss and deprivation.

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. By consent of both parties, the Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. United India Insurance Company, Tiruchengode aggrieved by Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 28.11.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No. 1241 of 2000, has filed the above appeal. In respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor accident that took place on 25.7.2000, the claimant/first respondent herein, prayed for a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. In support of his claim, he himself got examined as P.W.1, and he also examined one Rakkiappan and Dr. P. Gnanaprakash as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively, besides marking Exs. P-l to P-9. On the side of the owner and the insurer, no oral and documentary evidence was let in. The Tribunal, after analysing the materials and after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in question, passed an award for Rs.14,62,352 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Since the appellant/Insurance Company obtained permission to contest the claim petition on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 we permit the Insurance Company to canvas the finding relating to quantum determined by the Tribunal.

2. Heard Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company and Mr. D. Selvaraju, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant.

3. (i) Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the award of the Tribunal and all other materials placed, would submit that in the absence of acceptable evidence, the Tribunal merely based on his oral evidence, erroneously fixed Rs.7,000 as monthly income of the injured and arrived a compensation of Rs.13,44,000 towards loss of income due to the disability sustained in the accident. He also contended that when the claimant himself has prayed for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000, the Tribunal is not justified in granting such a huge compensation of Rs.14,62,352. He fairly states that he has no grievance with regard to the amount granted towards pain and suffering, nutritious food and medical expenses.

(ii) On the other hand, Mr. D. Selvaraju, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant, has submitted that in the claim petition, the injured claimant has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,97,500 and considering the fact that Court fee eligibility is only to the extent of Rs.5,00,000, he restricted his claim to an amount of Rs.5,00,000. According to him, when there are materials available for higher compensation the Tribunal should not be precluded from granting such amount. He also contended that taking note of the fact that the injured claimant was the owner cum driver of the van TN 07 7284, earning Rs.10,000 per month, and that he possessed necessary driving licence to drive the vehicle, and registration certificate in respect of the van and taking note of the nature of injuries, fracture, permanent disability, etc., the Tribunal has fixed the loss of income at the rate of Rs.7,000 per month and by applying multiplier of 16, arrived a compensation of Rs.13,44,000. According to him, the Tribunal is fully justified in fixing the total compensation of Rs.14,62,352 and there is no ground for interference.

4. In the light of the submissions made, the following points arise for consideration:

i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in applying the multiplier method while ascertaining compensation in the case of injury/permanent disablement sustained due to the accident ? ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the monthly income of the injured claimant at the rate of Rs.7,000 per month ?

5. Before considering the above points, it would be useful to refer certain salient features in regard to determination of compensation relating to grievous injuries, permanent disability, etc. Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 speaks about compensation, for Third Party Fatal Accidents/