IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the multiplier method is appropriate for calculating compensation in personal injury cases, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of notional income.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.) :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2019 dated 04.03.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Vellore @ Ranipet.)

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2019 dated 04.03.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Vellore @ Ranipet.)

Feeling aggrieved with the Common Award dated March 4, 2021 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.243 and 244 of 2019 by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court) Vellore @ Ranipet' [henceforth 'Tribunal' for brevity] the second respondent – Insurance Company has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal i.e., 'appellant' will be referred to as 'second respondent – Insurance Company'; 'first respondent in CMA No.955 of 2022 namely P.Balasubramanian' will be referred to as 'first petitioner'; 'first respondent in CMA No.957 of 2022 namely R.Babu @ R.Suresh Babu' will be referred to as 'second petitioner - pillion rider' and 'second respondent namely S.Muruganandham' will be referred to as 'first respondent'.

Petitioners' Case:

3. The case of the petitioners is that on September 8, 2019, at about 19.45 hours, the first petitioner was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN23-AP-7780 in the Ponnai to Lalapet Main Road with the second petitioner as pillion rider. While nearing Palani's house in Nellikuppam, the first respondent, who is the owner and driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.TN23-AP-9270, drove rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with their Motorcycle and caused grievous injuries to both the petitioners.

3.1. Immediately, the first petitioner was rushed to Government Hospital, Walaja and then shifted to Government Hospital, Vellore, for further treatment. The second petitioner – pillion rider was taken to Scudder Memorial Hospital, Ranipet for treatment.

3.2. A criminal case in Crime No.394 of 2019 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered on the file of Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet, against the first respondent, who is the owner cum Driver of the Auto.

3.3. According to the first petitioner, at the time of accident, he was working in G.V. Industries Company and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. According to the second petitioner – pillion rider, he was also working in G.V. Industries Company and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month.

3.4. Therefore, the first petitioner filed Motor Claim Original Petition in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2019 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) from the respondents while the second petitioner – pillion rider filed Motor Claim Original Petition in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2019 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from the respondents.

First Respondent's case

4. The first respondent filed counter wherein he denied the averments made in both the Original Petitions.

Second Respondent's case

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed counter stating that the alleged accident took place in night hours in a dark area, due to which, the petitioner had poor visibility. Due to this limited visibility, the first petitioner suddenly moved to the right side of the road and collided with the Auto coming from the opposite direction. The petitioners are solely responsible for the alleged accident and therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. Further, the compensation claimed by both the petitioners is excessive. Accordingly, the second respondent – Insurance Company prayed to dismiss both the Motor Claim Original Petitions.

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, first petit