The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the use of the multiplier method to calculate compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident, based on the impairment of the claimant's activities due to the disability suffered in the accident.

1. The appeal is against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, wherein, compensation of Rs.3,89,700/- was awarded for injuries suffered by the first respondent.

2. The accident is not disputed. The accident had taken place due to the fault of the second respondent. The only ground raised by the appellant Insurance company is that the Tribunal committed error in applying multiplier method. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, there was no functional disability for the 1st respondent, due to the disability suffered in the accident. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court:

(i) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 ACJ 1

(ii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Veluchamy reported in2005(1) CTC 38.

(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kannayiram reported in2012(1) TNMAC 611(DB).

3. I am not able to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. The said ground was canvassed before the Tribunal also and the Tribunal rejected the same in paragraph No.8 of the award. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“Due to her fracture and external fixation in her humerus, hip bone, acetabulam and fracture in ankle would definitely impaired her activities. So it is decided that multiplier method can be adopted based on the above said judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

The records viz., disability certificate, C.T. Scan, x-ray and other documents are also produced. The first respondent was treated as inpatient at Raja Hospital at Vannarpettai from 18.11.2009 to 20.11.2009 and she was taken treatment as inpatient in Medical College Hospital at Trivandrum from 20.11.2009 to 26.12.2009.

4. In these circumstances, even though the doctor/P.W.2 issued Ex.P16, disability certificate saying that the injured has suffered 43.3% of disability, the Tribunal had considered the same and fixed the disability only at 40% and applying 17 multiplier, awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/- for disability and totally awarded a sum of Rs.3,89,700/- under various heads as follows:

5. Perusing the award, in my view, there is no infirmity. Even though in the disability certificate, it was mentioned that the first respondent suffered 43.3% disability, the Tribunal has reduced the same at 40% and applying multiplier 17 and awarded the compensation.

6. In fact, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, the appeal is rejected. No costs. The 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the appellant Insurance Company.