Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 324
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. VIMALA
Kalvi @ Kalai Arasu
Versus
Murugesan & Others
C.M.A. No. 625 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 23-01-2012
For the Appellant:M/s. K. Varadha Kamaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 - Given up, R2 - Counsel for R-2 appeared at CMA.SR.Stage, R3 -M. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.
Ratio
In case of total disability, compensation on account of loss of earning should be given to the victim for the rest of his life.
Headnote:(A)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(59 of 1988)-Sec.166-Motor accident-Injury-Compensation-Total disability-Multiplier-Income-Proof-Appellant, aged 35 years and doing real estate business had suffered multiple injuries in a motor accident and was awarded compensation of Rs.9,25,000 against which he preferred appeal for enhancement-While the appellant contended that as his disability was total, he should be given compensation for loss of earnings for his full life which was resisted by the respondent-Held, in case of total disability, compensation on account of loss of earning should be given for the rest of his life-As there was no proof as to the earning of the appellant, minimum wages of Rs.4,000 per month was adopted-As his age was 35 on the date of accident, multiplier of 16 was adopted-Compensation was enhanced to Rs.17,08,000-Appeal was allowed.
(B)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(59 of 1988)-Sec.166-Motor accident-Injury-Compensation-Total disability-In case of total disability, compensation on account of loss of earning should be given to the victim for the rest of his life.
It is settled law that the compensation to be awarded in cases of permanent disablement can be more than that awarded in cases of death, as in the case of death, the compensation only goes to the dependent family members of the deceased, whereas in the case of permanent disablement, the compensation should go to the injured-claimant, apart from the dependent family members. Para 7
1. The injured, wheel-chaired, had claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. Contending that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate, the injured/claimant has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.C.O.P. No.534 of 2007 by the judgment 28.4.2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder :-
The appellant, Kalvi @ Kalai Arasu, is the victim of the accident. He was aged 35 years at the time of the accident; was doing real estate business and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. On 12.1.2005, at about 18.30 hours, when he was riding his motorcycle, he was hit by a van bearing Regn. No.TN-22-T-2461, due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. On account of the accident, the appellant/claimant suffered multiple fractures, which caused permanent disability; he became a paraplegic, as a result of which there was total loss of earning capacity on his part and he has now become a liability to his family.
3. The factum of negligence is disputed. The nature of injury, period of treatment, medical expenditure involved, alleged permanent disability and the consequential loss of earning capacity are all disputed. The insurance of the vehicle with the third respondent-insurance company is, however, admitted.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant-Kalvi @ Kalai Arasu was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.26 were marked. The doctors, N. Saichandran and T.S. Kalkura who issued the disability certificate have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the side of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence and the materials available on record, upheld the plea of negligence and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,25,000/-. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground, inter alia, that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation under the head loss of income only for a period of one year, whereas, it ought to have considered the claim of loss of income for the entire life of the appellant. Learned counsel contended that having regard to the nature of disability, the Tribunal should have adopted a multiplier method in assessing the compensation towards the loss of earning/loss of earning power as well as the medical expenses incurred by the appellant. The compensation under the head pain and suffering chould have been on the realistic side and therefore, it should have been something more than what was awarded by the Tribunal, as also the future medical expenses, which ought to have been granted.
6. On the other hand, the appellants claim is sought to be rejected by the third respondent-insurance company on the ground that the compensation awarded is already on the higher side and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions with regard to the claim for enhancement of the compensation, it would be relevant to state the basic principles involved in computing the compensation in cases of permanent disablement. It is settled law that the compensation to be awarded in cases of permanent disablement can be more than that awarded in cases of death, as in the case of death, the compensation only goes to the dependent family members of the deceased, whereas in the case of permanent disablement, the compensation should go to the injured-claimant, apart from the dependent family members.
8. In the case of Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs. Mahadeva Shetty reported in (2003) 7 S.C.C. 197, the Supreme Court held as follows :-
"12. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has bene battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merris in West
v. Shepard, 1964 A.C. 32
