The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC)) to determine the proper multiplier for calculating loss of future earnings and the assessment of compensation for various categories based on the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai in MACT.O.P.No.824 of 2003 dated, 20.01.2011, the injured claimant has filed this appeal.

2. The claimant sustained the following injuries.

i) Left temporal subjural haemorrhage

ii) Left temporal with a serebral haemorrhage with burnt temporal lobe.

iii) Diffuse Sub-arachnoid haemorrhage

iv) Left temporal parital region and right temporal fissured fracture.

3. P.W.5, Neuro surgeon had examined the appellant and determined his disability at 80%. The claimant was working as a wireman in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and was earning a sum of Rs.7,821/- at the time of accident. P.W.2, the Assistant Engineer, working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had deposed that the appellant would have been promoted as a Line Inspector as he was in the panel for promotion and had he been promoted as a Line Inspector, he would have got a monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-.

4. The Tribunal, without assessing the functional disability of the injured granted compensation at Rs.2,000/- per percentage and awarded Rs.1,60,000/-, apart from other conventional damages. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as follows:

Sl. No. Category Award Amount (Rs.)

1 Medical Expenses Rs. 10,350/-

2 Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-

3 Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/-

4 Permanent Disability Rs. 1,60,000/-

5 Transportation charges Rs.16,400/-

6 Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/-

Total Rs.2,51,750/-

5. According to the learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant, the Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing the functional disability on account of permanent disability incurred by the claimant at 80% and granted compensation at Rs.2,000/-per percentage which is on the lower side and grossly inadequate.

6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation, justifying the award passed by the Tribunal, had contended that it does not call for any enhancement.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents produced by the claimant/appellant.

8. In this appeal, after seeking permission from this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014, an additional document has been marked, which is the proceedings of the Superintendent Engineer, Villupuram, whereunder, the claimant/G. Balaraman, wireman is deem to have been invalidated from Board's service on medical grounds w.e.f. 17.05.2011.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the claimant was drawing the salary till he was terminated from service i.e., 17.05.2011, which is also not disputed by the claimant.

10. The evidence placed on record shows that he has suffered functional disability to the extent of 80%. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to that, we have no reasons to come to a different conclusion with regard to percentage of functional disability of the claimant at 80%. We find that the opinion expressed by the doctor is worthy of acceptance and it cannot be rejected. Having regard to the fact that the claimant/appellant, who had worked as wireman, could not pursue his avocation with the said disability, the Tribunal, ought to have computed the loss of future earning by assessing the functional disability at 80%.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account that the claimant would attain superannuation in 2019, Rs.8,000/-can be taken as the monthly income and adding Rs.4,000/- towards future prospects, the total income comes to Rs.12,000/-. From the said income, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, for computing the loss of income, it would be appropriate to take the monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. Considering the appellant was a wireman and had 7 years of service, by applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC), the proper multiplier would be 7. Therefore, Rs.6,72,000