The application of the multiplier method for loss of future earning capacity should be based on various factors and should be proportionate to the nature of the claimant’s avocation and the accident injury sustained.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 1st August 2015, passed in M.C.O.P.No.4537 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Chennai.)

1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.4537 of 2012 dated 01.08.2015 to the first respondent who sustained fracture on his right patella in a motor accident.

2. The facts of the case is that, on 10.08.2012, at about 6.00 pm, when the claimant was riding in a motorcycle in C.B. Road, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Korukkupet, a motorcycle from the opposite side rash and negligently dashed against the claimant vehicle. The claimant was thrown out from the vehicle and he sustained injuries all over the body. The owner cum Driver of the offending vehicle is arrayed as first respondent and the insurer of that vehicle is arrived at second respondent before the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the claimant.

3. The case of the claimant is that, at the time of accident, he was 35 years old, working as an Electrician earning Rs.500/- per day. Due to the closed comminuted fracture on his right patella, he has sustained 55% partial permanent disability. He is not able to walk or stand for long time. Hence, sought for a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.

4. The Tribunal on considering the materials placed by the claimant has awarded Rs.8,49,600/- with the following break – up.

5. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal over and above the claim made by the claimant without any rhyme or reason but on hypothetical assumption, has laid the present appeal before this Court on the following grounds:-

(i) The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration that there is no total permanent disability and went wrong in concluding that the nature of the injury which has been caused to the claimant is 30% disability based on the evidence of P.W.3 - Dr. K.J. Mathialagan, who has clinically examined the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered 30% towards loss of future earning capacity, which disability is not of permanent, but whereas is said disability is partial and temporary in nature and instead of awarding a sum of Rs.90,000/- @ 3,000/- per percent of disability (30%) instead awarded a sum of Rs.7,77,600/-, towards loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The Tribunal also went wrong in awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of medical expenses but whereas the petitioner has spent only Rs.1,296.20 paise towards the medical expenses, and thereby the Tribunal went wrong in awarding the loss of future earning capacity of Rs.7,77,600/- which is highly disproportionate and uninaginable when compared the treatment taken by the first respondent herein and the claimant before the Tribunal and the injuries sustained, which requires revision.

(iii) The Tribunal has also awarded the loss of earning for three months Rs.27,000/- without any support of the income proof, instead of notional income.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing 30% as loss of earning capacity purely based on the evidence given by P.W.3, the Doctor who only clinically examined the claimant but not treated him. In fact, the records indicates that for the injury the claimant was treated with plaster of paris and got discharged. Late