The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident claims, including the application of the multiplier method, loss of earning capacity, and future medical expenses.

JUDGMENT :

J.NISHA BANU, J.

In an accident which occurred on 10.12.2013, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained crush injuries. He filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.499 of 2014, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Thoothukudi, and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.62,67,730/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that though the 1st respondent/claimant said to have sustained 57% disability, he is still continuing his avocation as Banking Officer and when there is no total disablement or functional disability to the claimant, resulting in loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier method, which is arbitrary. He would further state that the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities are on the higher side. Thus, he would pray for appropriate modification on the quantum.

3. The 1st respondent/claimant has filed CMP(MD)No.3648 of 2019, under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, to receive and mark the proceedings of the claimant's employer, dated 17.11.2017, and salary certificate of the claimant, dated 31.07.2018 and salary certificate of the colleague, dated 31.07.2018, as additional evidence in this appeal, stating that those documents were not available during trial. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would state that the claimant got appointment as General Banking Officer, at the young age of 23 years, and in the unfortunate accident, he lost the use of his both legs below hip, for which, he took treatment between 10.12.2013 to 04.05.2014, during which, he underwent many surgeries and received rehabilitative treatment for 5 years. In view of the accident, the claimant has taken leave for 11 months and therefore, his job has not been confirmed till date. According to the learned counsel, due to loss of service for 11 months, the claimant is receiving less pay than his colleagues and his future promotions will be delayed by one year and the pay difference due to this will be minimum of Rs.30,000/- per month in the upcoming scales. But, the Tribunal has failed to award loss of income for 11 months of service at Rs.3,12,859/- to the claimant and loss of income for his parents at Rs.2,69,428/-, who have taken leave under loss of pay to take care of the claimant.

4. He would further state that due to injuries, the claimant is unable to live independently and his father used to drop and pick up him from his office in a Taxi and the Taxi fare is approximately Rs.200/- every day. He would also state that due to the crush injuries, the claimant is undergoing physiotherapy and reflexology therapy, in order to prevent deterioration in the physical condition and to regain any possible movement in his legs, and functionality in one leg of the claimant could be restored to some extent, through knee corrections, which would require 5 surgeries over a period of 6 months, at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-, which the claimant or his parents are not able to afford, but the Tribunal has not awarded any sum for future medical expenses. He would also state that in view of skin grafting done in the leg, the claimant is experienced severe pain and suffering, but the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel would further state that the award under the heads transport charges, extra nourishment and loss of amenities are meagre. Thus, he would pray for enhancement on the quantum. In support of his contentions, he would rely on the following decisions.:-

i) National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. C.Ramesh Babu reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 636.

ii) Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,