The court upheld the Tribunal's use of the multiplier method for calculating compensation based on the petitioner's 45% permanent disability, affirming the award as fair and reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 29, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.681 of 2020 on the file of the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / II Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short], the second respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition.

Petitioner's case

3. The case of the petitioner is that on January 27, 2020 at about 03.00 p.m., he was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-14-E-3746 on Velachery - Tambaram Main Road, near Santhosapuram Mental Hospital Compound in East to West direction. When he attempted to stop his vehicle, the driver of the Tata Ace bearing Registration No.TN-11-AE-8116, which was being driven in the same direction, collied with the petitioner's vehicle, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries in both his legs and he was admitted in Cosh Private Hospital, East Tambaram. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s driver. At the time of the accident, the first respondent’s vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 49,00,000/- from the respondents.

First Respondent's case

4. The 1^st respondent did not chose to appear before the Tribunal. He was called absent and set ex-parte on March 16, 2021.

Second Respondent's case

5. The 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of the accident. It was stated in the counter that the petitioner is put to strict medical proof of his disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Further, it was stated that the age, occupation and income mentioned in the claim petition are false. Since the petitioner claims Rs. 60,000/- as his salary, he has to produce income tax returns as proof. It was further stated that the petitioner is put to strict proof regarding the validity of the driving license of the driver of TATA Ace bearing registration No. TN-11-AE-8116 and that of the petitioner as rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-14-E-3746. The insurance policy, fitness certificate, permit badge as applicable at the time of the accident ought to have been produced. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly speculative, exaggerated and excessive and without any legal or factual basis. Therefore the 2^nd respondent contended that he has no liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Tribunal

6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.14 marked. No document or oral evidence was adduced on the side of the second respondent. Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, by relying on Ex.P2 – First Information Report (FIR), Ex-P.3 - Rough Sketch, Ex-P.4 – Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [M.V.I. Report] and Ex-P.5 - Final Report, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent’s driver. As regards the disability, based on Ex-C.1, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner suffered 45% permanent disability. Further concluded that the petitioner suffers from locomotor disability due to bilateral fracture of both leg bones and hence he would not be able to carry out his work easily, and accordingly, the Tribunal adopted multiplier method. Though the petitioner stated that he was running an ice cream and cool bar business, he failed to prove his case by adducing relevant documents and hence the Tribunal notionally took a sum of Rs.15,000/- as his monthly income, added 25% future prospects and applied multiplier '14' to arrive at a sum of Rs.14,17,500/- as compensation towards disab