The ascertainment of future loss of income or earning capacity should consider various factors and should not be automatic. The extent of permanent disability and its effect on earning capacity are crucial in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.02.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.02.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. The Appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay total compensation of Rs.18,32,892/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the injured claimant for the disabilities suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 14.04.2009, challenged the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal and more particularly, the application of multiplier method adopted by the tribunal.

3. The main contention of the Appellant/Insurer is that the tribunal without any justification has adopted the multiplier formula and awarded Rs.15,36,000/- towards future loss of earning capacity, that there is no proof of permanent disablement and for functional disability for the injured, that there is no evidence to show that the injured is unable to carry out the avocation after the accident, that the fixation of Rs.8,000/- as monthly income of the injured notionally is without any basis, that the assessment of disability by the Medical Officer two years after the accident would show that the disability is fictitious and that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive and out of proportion.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the tribunal erred in applying and adopting the multiplier method in the absence of any evidence for permanent disablement and resultant functional disability for the injured claimant?

(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is proper and is in accordance with law?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court ought not to have applied and adopted the multiplier formula as there is absolutely no proof for permanent disablement and the resultant functional disability for the injured, that the tribunal has failed to notice that there is no evidence relating to the total disablement, the loss of avocation and the functional disability, and that tribunal ought to have followed the principles laid down by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Veluchamy and another, reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the injured had suffered seven specific injuries along with other injuries all over his body, that he was given in-patient treatment at Government Hospital, Chennai for the period between 14.04.2009 and 16.04.2009, that thereafter, he was admitted in New Hope Medical Centre, Keelpauk and was given in-patient treatment from 16.04.2009 to 26.04.2009 and again from 19.05.2009 to 02.06.2009 that the claimant had spinal card injury, left clavicle fracture and head injury, that the left hand of the injured was paralysed, that he was unable to walk and was having headache and eye problems very often and that the tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence has rightly adopted the multiplier method.

7. Before entering into the further discussion, it is necessary to refer the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Appellant;

(i) 2005 (1) CTC 38: United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Veluchamy and another, Para 11:

“11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement 'multiplier method' cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power.

(b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and