IMPORTANT POINT
The Court applied the multiplier method and adjusted notional income based on legal precedents to determine fair compensation for disability and loss of earnings.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree made in MCOP.No.3168 of 2017, dated 26.09.2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.3168 of 2017.

2. On 10.11.2016, when the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-19P-3166 and proceeding to Velachery on 100 Feet Road towards North to South, the respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN- 01-N-8903 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's vehicle. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal, claiming Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

3. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the following heads:

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimant had sustained grievous viz., Degloving injury with Laceration of right thigh ad Perineum, Degloving injury with Gluetal Region with skin Necrosis, Degloving injury on right thigh, sigmoid loop colostomy'', due to which, he was not able to do his day to day activities. Further, though the Medical Board had assessed the permanent disability of the injured at 22% and issued Disability Certificate (Ex.C1) which shows that the appellant suffered with functional disability, however, the Tribunal applied per centage method and awarded the compensation which is on the lower side. Hence, he requests this Court to enhance the same.

5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that considering the year of the accident and nature of avocation of the appellant, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference and hence, he requests this Court to confirm the same. He also submits that if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-determined, the same will be duly considered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the present case, the accident had occurred in the year 2016 and at the time of accident, the appellant/injured was aged about 27 years, but as regards his avocation and monthly income, no documentary evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. The Regional Medical Board, after examining the appellant, issued Ex.C1 Disability Certificate, fixing the permanent disability at 22%.

8. In these circumstances, the Tribunal determined the loss of compensation towards disability at a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by taking into the partial and permanent disability at 22% by adopting per centage method at 5,000/- for each per centage, which in the opinion of this Court is very low and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the functional disability at 22% as could be seen from Ex.C1 Disability Certificate, it would be appropriate to apply multiplier method.

9. As regards the notional income of the appellant is concerned, though the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence regarding his avocation and monthly income, the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.25,000/- per month, which is very high. Therefore, taking