The court upheld the Tribunal's compensation calculation for a motor accident victim, emphasizing the application of the multiplier method and future prospects in determining loss of income due to disability.

JUDGMENT :

(R. SAKTHIVEL, J.)

Feeling aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruppur (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.No.896 of 2017 dated December 19, 2019, the second respondent therein / Insurance company preferred this CMA.No.1515 of 2020, while the petitioner / claimant therein preferred Cross Objection No.86 of 2021 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.

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

3.The Insurance Company filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal; therefore, there is no need to deal with the aspect of liability.

Petitioner’s case

4.The case of the petitioner is that on January 31, 2017, at about 09.00 hours, while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 37 M 6186 from south to north on the Avinashi to Naduvacheri Road, near Ravuthampalayam Bus Stop, Avinashi, the first respondent was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-39-BY- 5558 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner suffered a head injury and was immediately taken to The Revathi Medical Centre, Tiruppur where he was admitted as inpatient on January 31, 2017 and discharged on March 1, 2017. The discharge summary indicate the following injuries:-

(I) RTA – HEAD INJURY, MULTIPLE INJURY

(II) ACUTE EDH LEFT FRONTOPARITEAL REGION

(III) ACUTE THIN SDH RIGHT FRONTAL REGION

(IV) FRACTURE LEFT ORBIT MAXILLARY SINUS INVOLVING ALL WALLS – LEFORT III FRACTURE (V) BLUNT INJURY ABDOMEN

(VI) MESENTRIC TEAR WITH SMALL BOWEL ISCHEMIA

The discharge summary refers to the details of treatment given to the petitioner as follows:-

“B NEGATIVE WHOLE BLOOD 3 UNITS, PACKED CELLS 1 UNIT TRANSFUSION DONE

COURSE IN HOSPITAL:

THIS 46 YEARS OLD MALE CAME TO OUR HOSPITAL WITH ALLEGED H/ORTA ON 31.01.2017 ON RECEIVING IN CASUALITY, PT UNCONSCIOUS, RESTLESS, GCS 6/15. HEAD INJURY (+), LEFT UPPER EYE LID LACERATION (+), B/L NASAL BLEED (+), LEFT EYE – NOT REACTING TO LIGHT, LEFT THIGH PUNCTURE WOUND (+), PATIENT ADMITTED IN ICU, AIRWAY SECUREDWITH ET TUBE, CT BRAIN - SHOWING ACUTE EDH IN LEFT FRONTOPARIETAL REGION CAUSING MIDLINE SHIFT TO RIGHT, ACUTE THIN SDH IN RIGHT FRONTAL REGION, CECT ABDOMEN SHOWING MESENTERIC CONGESTION AROUND SUPERIOR MESENTRIC VEIN, MODERATE FREE FLUID IN ABDOMEN - ? MESENTRIC TEAR, PATIENT TREATED BY INTENSIVIST, NEUROSURGEON, GERERAL SURGEON & ENT SURGEON & POSTED FOR CRANIOTOMY - EVACUATION OF ACUTE EDH & POSTED FOR EMERGENCY LAPAROTOMY - SMALL BOWEL RESECTION & ANASTAMOSIS ON 31.01.2017, POST PROCEDURAL PERIOD WAS UNEVENTFUL, X-RAY PELVIS SHOWING INCREASED AP AT SYMPHYSIS, PELVIC BINDER WAS APPLIED, OPTHALMOLOGIST OPINION SOUGHT AND GUARDED PROGNOSIS OF LEFT EYE EXPLAINED TO THE ATTENDER, PATIENT WAS DIAGNOSED AS APIRATION PNEUMONIA & ELECTIVE TRACHEOSOTOMY DONE ON 03.02.2017, LEFT ORBIT & MAXILLARY SINUS FRACTURE - LEFORT III FRACTURE - ORIF DONE ON 03.02.2017 PT GCS IMPROVING, PATIENT CLINCIALLY IMPROVING. PATIENT WEANING FROM VENTILATOR ON 05.02.2017. HENCE PATIENT SHIFTED TO ROOM ON 06.02.2017. PATIENT CLINICALLY IMPROVING, HENCE ADVICE DISCHARGE. CONDITION OF PATIENT AT DISCHARGE, CONSCIOUS, ORIENTED, RESPONDS TO ORAL COMMANDS, AFEBRILE, VITALS STABLE."

Accordingly, he seeks Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) as compensation from the respondents.

Second respondent's case

5.The 2 respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit stating that the first respondent did not have a valid driving license on the date of accident, which constitutes a breach of the insurance policy condition. The petitioner was also overspeeding which resulted in his inability to control the vehicle, leading to a collision with the 1^st respondent's vehicle and causing the accident. The petitioner has no permanent