The assessment of disability and determination of compensation should consider the multiplier method and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.

2. The appellant/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 16.10.2009.

3. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle and directed the respondents 1 and 2/owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,550/-, jointly and severally, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as compensation to the appellant/claimant under following heads:

4. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant brought the appellant/claimant before this Court as per the order of this Court dated 10.07.2023 and submitted that the accident took place on 16.10.2009. Due to the said accident, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment for 84 days as in-patient. At the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was 27 years old and he was doing agricultural and sugarcane crusher work. Though the Doctor has assessed disability at 60%, the Tribunal has reduced the disability to 50% without giving any reasons and fixed a sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards permanent disability. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- and awarded compensation towards loss of income for 6 months.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would further submit that due to the said accident, the leg of the injured has shortened about 10 cm and he could not work as agriculturist or sugarcane crusher in future. Therefore, 100% disability has to be assessed for awarding compensation. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and future medical expenses.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would submit that a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been fixed per percentage of disability and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability, which is just and fair. She would further submit that towards loss of amenities and future medical expenses, this Court may award any considerable amount.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant as well as the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

9. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for either parties and after observing the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, it is seen that the appellant's/claimant's right leg has been shortened about 10 cm, due to the said injury sustained by him in the accident that took place on 16.10.2009, he could not do his day-to-day activities without the help of others. Therefore, this Court feels