The court's decision reaffirmed the application of the multiplier method to determine loss of earning power in cases of permanent disability, as established in previous judgments.

1. When the appeal came up for admission, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. The appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 made in MCOP.No.1439 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The injured Amanulla met with a motor traffic accident on 13.03.2007 at about 09.30 hours. The said injured was travelling in a bus belonging to the State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1714. The bus was proceeding in Krishnagiri-Hosur National Highways Road towards Hosur. When the bus was nearing Gurubarapalli Bus stop, opposite to I.B.P. Petrol Bunk at Gurubarapalli, at that time a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01-AG-7799 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. Due to the same, the injured claimant sustained fracture and other grievous injuries all over the body resulting amputation of the right hand and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The said lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company, who resisted the claim.

4.On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent?

2. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly, severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner? If so, how much compensation petitioner is entitled to?

5.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,97,636/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition and the details of the same are as under:-

Sl.No.

Heads under which the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

Amount awarded by the Tribunal

1

Loss of Earning Power

Rs.5,61,600/-

2

Pain and Sufferings

Rs. 10,000/-

3

Medical Expenses

Rs. 13,836/-

4

Partial loss on convalescence period

Rs. 4,500/-

5

Extra nutrition

Rs. 5,000/-

6

Ambulance Expenses

Rs. 1,700/-7

Attender Charges

Rs. 1,000/-

Total

Rs.5,97,636/-

Aggrieved by that award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant, without basis and justification. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal had taken monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which is on the higher side. The Tribunal was also wrong in adopting the multiplier method in the case of injury when there is no concrete evidence available to show that 65% Permanent Disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the documents available on record.

8. On the side of the Claimant, the injured/Claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is Dr.Gandhi and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Mr.G.Govindhan, driver of third respondent bus was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. Ex.P1 is the xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P3 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.P.5 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P6 are Medical Bills. Ex.P.7 is the Ambulance Bill. Ex.P.8 is the copy of Passport. Ex.P.9 is the Flight Ticket Receipt Voucher. Ex.P.10 is the VISA. Ex.P.11 is X-ray. Ex.P12 is Disability Certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company and