The court upheld the application of the multiplier method in determining loss of income and confirmed the compensation based on the principles established in 2005 (1) CTC 38 and 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 (SC).

1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant against award dated 27.03.2001 made in M.C.O.P No.76 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge) Cuddalore.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The first respondent Mr.M.Arunkumar, was met with an accident on 26.11.1997 at about 11.45 A.M. He was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.TN 32/N0808 belonging to the appellant transport corporation on its trip from Kallakurichi to Chennai. When the bus was nearing Salavathi village at about 11.45 A.M., a lorry bearing registration No.TN 04C 05952 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit against the appellant transport corporation bus. In the result, some people sustained grievous injuries and one lady was died on the spot. The first respondent/claimant was grievously injured and his right upper limb was severed above elbow and immediately he was admitted in Tindivanam Government Hospital. In order to provide further treatment, he was taken to Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai. He claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The appellant transport corporation as well as the third respondent resisted the claim. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

(i) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicle or not?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation? If so how much?

After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both vehicle involved in the accident and fixed the negligence at 50% each, on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus as well as the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,63,248/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The details of compensation are as follows:

Loss of income: Rs.6,40,512/-

Pain and suffering: Rs. 5,000/-

Extra nourishment: Rs. 5,000/-

Medical expenses: Rs. 12,736/-

Total Rs.6,63,248/-

Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation alone has filed the present appeal. The third respondent-Insurance company has not filed an appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Transport Corporation contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the Tribunal erred in fixing the negligence on the driver of the appellant transport corporation bus as well as the driver of the lorry belonging to the second respondent. He also submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is exorbitant, without and basis and justification. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant materials and awarded a just and reasonable compensation is based on the valid materials and evidence. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Tribunal should be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the first respondent. EX.P1 dated 26.11.1997 FIR, EX.P2 dated 27.11.1997 Motor Vehicle Inspectors report, EX.P3 dated 26.11.1997 copy of accident register, EX.P4 dated 26.11.1997 medical prescription, EX.P5-copy of insurance policy, EX.P6 dated 26.11.1997 medical prescription of M.R. Hospital, Ex.P7-copy of driving licence, Ex.P8-copy of registration certificate, Ex.P9 dated 15.07.1997 salary certificate, Ex.P10-medical bills, Ex.P11 dated 09.06.2000 disability certificate, Ex.P12-X-ray were marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1-driver o