JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: C.M.A. No. 2194 of 2021 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P. No.469 of 2017, dated 05.03.2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Cros. Obj. No. 98 of 2021: Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure in C.M.A. No. 2194 of 2021 against the decree and judgment dated 5th day of March, 2020 made in M.C.O.P. No.469 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned award dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No.469 of 2017.

2. The second respondent Insurance Company has also filed Cross Objection Cros. Obj. No. 98 of 2021 challenging the very same award questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant in C.M.A. No. 2194 of 2021 who is the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.469 of 2017.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimant a compensation of Rs. 8,22,530/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder.

4. The claimant was a building facility manager, aged 66 years at the time of the accident which happened on 13.10.2016. In the claim petition, he has pleaded that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal under the impugned award fixed the notional monthly income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- as no evidence has been produced by the claimant to show that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. This Court does not find any infirmity in the assessment of monthly income of the claimant. Hence, the same is confirmed by this Court.

5. As a result of an accident caused by a vehicle insured with the second respondent Insurance Company, the claimant has sustained severe spinal cord injury resulting in quadriparesis besides multiple injuries all over his body and due to the spinal cord injury, he has lost the use of his hands and legs. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant has not been disputed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Sufficient documentary evidence has been produced by the claimant to prove his injuries before the Tribunal. The medical board which examined the claimant has assessed his whole body disability at 20% which has been accepted by the Tribunal under the impugned award. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier method after giving due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and his long period of hospitalisation as seen from the discharge summaries filed by the claimant before the Tribunal which has also not been disputed by the Insurance Company. As seen from the evidence available on record, the claimant has also taken continuous treatment ever since the date of the accident which resulted in the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal has also adopted the correct multiplier of 5, since the claimant was aged 66 years at the time of the accident. This court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal. Only after giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier method and has awarded the compensation towards loss of earning capacity to the claimant at Rs.1,80,000/- (15,000 x 12 x 5 x 20%).

6. The Tribunal has awarded a compe