The court emphasized the importance of considering the profession of the injured and the application of the multiplier method in determining compensation for permanent disability in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to allow this appeal and enhance the award amount in M.C.O.P.No.461 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli, dated 11.06.2015.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.461 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the claim petition.

2. Brief substance of the petition filed by the claimants is as follows: On 24.02.2014, while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 67 C 6086 along the Tirunelveli- VK Puram main road, near Sivanthipuram, a bus bearing registration number TN 72 N 1714 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, keeping the right side of the road, dashed against the motorcycle. The petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner was a driver and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The petitioner sustained permanent disability. He claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent is as follows: The age, avocation and income of the petitioner are all denied. The manner of accident is wrongly stated in the petition. The accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler. The rider of the two wheeler was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The petitioner has to prove the medical expenses. The owner and the insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties. The claim is excessive.

4. Two witnesses were examined and Seven documents were marked on the side of the claimant. One witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,65,280/- as compensation.

5. Against the award amount, the claimant preferred this appeal, on the following grounds: The Tribunal failed to consider the profession of the injured. The restriction of movement itself is sufficient to adopt multiplier method. The restrictions in the movement would adversely affect the work. The Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.48,000/- towards temporary loss of income. Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal failed to grant compensation for loss of expectation of life. The Tribunal failed to consider the profession of the petitioner and has treated the petitioner as a coolie.

6. On the side of the respondent it is stated that Rs.4,500/- per month was the notional income at the relevant period. For a vegetable vendor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the income only as Rs.6,500/-. A Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 AIR SC 1052 in the case of Syed Sadiq etc., Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, is cited.

7. On the side of the appellant it is stated that even for a disability of 31%, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted the multiplier method in calculating the compensation. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020(2) TN MAC 303(SC) in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., is cited.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that even for 29% disability, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation by applying multiplier method. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 537(SC) in the case of Rudra Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd and another, is cited.

9. On the side of the appellant it is stated that the injured was a driver but no driving license was filed on the side of the petitioner. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the injured was a qualified driver. The accident took place in the year 2014. The Tribunal fixed the compensation by calculating Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability which is r