The court emphasized the application of the multiplier method for disability compensation and the deduction for contributory negligence due to non-wearing of a helmet.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.676 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Distrct and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The Insurance Company is on appeal aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.38,61,862/- for the injuries suffered by the first respondent herein in a motor accident that occurred on 29.02.2012.

2. The claimant, a lawyer by profession sought for a compensation of Rs.70 lakhs for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. According to the claimant, when he was travelling in a motor cycle at about 8.40 a.m. on 29.02.2012 from Errapatti to Padi in Papprapatti - Dharmapuri main road, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-30-U-3466 came from Dharmapuri at a high speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered various injuries including the injury in the brain and the skull. According to the claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.1 lakh a month and he was contributing Rs.90,000/- to his family. Because of the accident, he is unable to continue his legal practice and hence, he should be compensated.

3. The defendant Insurance Company resisted the claim by contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimant. It was also claimed that the claimant contributed to the accident by not wearing a helmet. The Insurance Company also termed the quantum of compensation as excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P27 were marked. One Mr.Ramasamy, a legal officer of the Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1. A report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector was marked as Ex.R1. Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

5. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, fixed the notional income of the injured at Rs.30,000/- per month and adopted a multiplier of ''15'' and arrived the total loss of income at Rs.54,00,000/-. Taking into account the disability assessed at 55% by the Medical Board, the Tribunal computed the loss of earning power at Rs.29,70,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded following amounts under the following heads:-

Aggrieved by the above said compensation, the Insurance Company is an appeal.

6. Ms.C.Bhuvanasundari, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income at Rs.30,000/- without any basis. She would also attack the award of the Tribunal on the ground that though the disability has been assessed at 55% by the Medical Board, the Tribunal had not come to the conclusion that the injured/claimant was rendered unfit to continue his profession in order to apply the multiplier method. She would also point out that the injured/claimant was travelling in his two-wheeler without the helmet. According to her, the Tribunal ought to have deducted certain percentage of compensation towards contributory negligence for helmet-less riding.

7. The respondent, appearing in person, would submit that he is unable to continue the profession as a lawyer because of the accident and he has been rendered jobless. He would also contend that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side.

8. We have considered the submissions.

9. We are in agreement with the c