The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method in determining just compensation for disability and loss of earning capacity under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: CMA filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award passed by the MACT (Small Causes Court No.III) Chennai, in MCOP.No.3757/2007 dated 27.04.2012.)

1. This appeal is filed originally by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. Subsequently, on the death of the injured claimant, legal heirs of the deceased were brought on record.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.08.2007 at 21.00 hours, when the claimant was traveling as pillion rider in a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-20-L-5562 from Pallavaram to Kandigai, the first respondent’s Tata Sumo Van bearing Reg.No.TN-09-K-9797 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner, thereby, the petitioner sustained grievous injures. The claimant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries in MCOP.No.3757 of 2007.

3. The Tribunal after elaborate trial, answered the issues that due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s vehicle driver, the accident took place. The first respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the vehicle, the tribunal held that 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the injured.

4. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, at the time of accident, the injured petitioner was 31 years, working as Technical Assistant in Hakkim Leather Company and was earning Rs.4,500 /- per month.

5. Going by Ex.P.2 Discharge summary, it is evident that injured was treated as inpatient in Government General Hospital, Chennai, for a period of 71 days and had undergone surgery. Even thereafter, taken continuous treatment in private hospital and undergone surgery. Totally, petitioner underwent 5 surgeries. Ex.P.2 shows that petitioner sustained fracture of right femur, dislocation of right hip and compound fracture of both bones right leg.

6. P.W.2 Doctor was examined and his testimony was that petitioner sustained partial permanent disability for fracture of right femur, shortening of right leg by 3 inch and petitioner is limping and facing difficulty to squat, to stand and climb stairs and there is disfigurement and not in a position to do any work. Ex.P.14-disability certificate assessing the disability as 60% has been marked.

7. The Tribunal, going by disability certificate and photo Ex.P.11 of the petitioner, fixed Rs.2000/- per percentage of disability and for 60% disability, Rs.1,20,000/- has been granted. The compensation granted by the Tribunal on all the heads is as under:-

8. The injured claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement. It has been stated that the injured was about 31 years at the time of accident and he had a family and he has to support his children. But due to accident, his future got crippled and it is impossible for him to do any kind of work much less manual work to earn a decent living. It was averred that there was disfigurement of right leg besides shortening of right leg and it requires further treatment.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that applying multiplier method for the disability would have given a just compensation for the injured. But the tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method in this case. Learned counsel prayed for just compensation by way of enhancement.

10. Heard both sides.

11. A perusal of entire materials available on record would go show that the