The percentage method is preferred over the multiplier method for calculating compensation in cases of partial permanent disability where functional impairment does not hinder daily activities.

JUDGMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

The above appeal is filed by the appellant / insurance company challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Ordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam in the Judgment and decree dated 17.03.2020 in MCOP.No.149 of 2018

2. In view of the judgment being passed, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

3. Though the notice was served on the second respondent, no one appeared on behalf of the second respondent. Considering the period of pendency of the above appeal, the same is taken up for final hearing based on the materials available on record.

4. It is the case of the first respondent / claimant that, on 13.05.2018 at about 7.00 pm, when the claimant was riding a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 36 X 4444, at that time, a car bearing Regn.No.Tn 69 Q 5266 driven by its driver belonging to the third respondent insured with the appellant / insurance company, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle driven by the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over her body. Claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, the claim petition has been filed by the claimant.

5. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent / claimant had examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the appellant / insurance company, they have neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents and Court document was marked as Ex.C1. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,43,045/- as compensation to the claimant to be payable by the appellant / insurance company. Challenging the same, the appellant / insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

6. During the pendency of the above appeal, the claimant has marked Exs.P12 to P.28 before this Court, which are the medical expenses incurred by the claimant amounting to a sum of Rs.74,915/- for the period from 14.02.2022 to 31.03.2022.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / insurance company submitted that though it is clear from the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board that the percentage of disability assessed by an independent doctor is 55% partial permanent disability which is not functional in nature and the same would not hamper the claimant from doing her day to day work. However, contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, the Tribunal has fixed 55% functional disability under the head “partial permanent disability” by adopting multiplier method which is per se unsustainable. The compensation awarded under the others heads are also on the higher side and the same requires interference of this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / claimant submits that by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the adopted multiplier method and arrived at the compensation under the head partial permanent disability, which does not require any interference. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, they are on the lower side and the same requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the first respondent / claimant further submits that the claimant has marked Exs.P12 to P.28 during the pendency of the above appeal before this Court, which are the medical expenses incurred by the claimant amounting to a sum of Rs.74,915/- for the period from 14.02.2022 to 31.03.2022. Hence, this Court may award a su