The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier method for calculating loss of earning capacity and the consideration of future prospects for self-employed individuals below 40 years of age.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to enhance the compensation of Rs.3,47,500/- as awarded by the lower Court to Rs.12,00,000/-.)

1. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in the Judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1864 of 2001 dated 16.11.2012, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant herein for enhancement of compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 163(A) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T. Rules claiming a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 31.08.2000.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the award for an amount of Rs.3,47,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the petition, i.e.11.06.2001 till the date of deposit.

4. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously argue that the injured, who was 20 years old, suffered Grade -III B, compound comminuted fracture both bone left leg and he was given treatment as inpatient for 173 days. He would further contend that the monthly salary of the claimant which was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month, is very less. The Doctor assessed the disability of the the appellant as 75% . But, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 25% which is on the lower side. The amount awarded for pain and sufferings undergone, loss of amenities, attendant charges are also insufficient.

5. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq, etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 459 (SC), wherein the monthly income of an injured Vegetable Vendor, aged 24 years, was fixed as Rs.6,500/- for the accident occurred in the year 2008.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company would vehemently argue that the award was passed in the year 2012. The accident occurred in the year 2000. The doctor who treated the injured was not examined. The disability has to be assessed only for the whole body. No document was marked to show that the appellant was running a meat shop. Therefore, he cannot claim that his employment is affected as he can employ some other person in his place. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal, for the accident occurred in the year 2000, at Rs.4,500/- is on the higher side in the given circumstances. If at all the appellant is not able to do any work, then alone, multiplier can be invoked. Considering the date of accident and the nature of injury, the award passed by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable.

7. Heard the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsels of both sides and perused the entire materials on record.

8. It is the evidence of the appellant/P.W.1 that on 31.08.2000, at 15.15 hours, while he was standing near the center median-G.S.T. Road, near Hotel Sahar, Guindy, Chennai, a lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-09-D3966 which came from East to West, hit him and eventually, he sustained grievous injuries, which is not in dispute.

9. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he was a proprietor of a Pork stall and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To substantiate the said claim, no document was filed. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month and it is taken as such as notional income.

10. As regards the future prospects, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has standardized the details of future prospects for various age group of persons, to be added with income in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [reported in (2017)