Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4283
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. KALAIMATHI, J.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
S.Palanisamy - Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.1022 of 2024
Decided on : 29-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
The multiplier method is valid for computing future loss of income in injury claims, while loss of income during treatment is not compensated when using this method.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Accidents - Contributory Negligence - Compensation - Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 40%, resulting in a total award of Rs.13,74,690/-. Court considered claims for disability and future loss of income, adopting the multiplier method and awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.14,22,750/-. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Method of Compensation Calculation - The multiplier method is appropriate for computing future loss of income. The claimant is not entitled to loss of income during treatment if using this method. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Claimant suffered serious injuries in an accident on 08.07.2017, with an assessed disability of 60%. Tribunal awarded compensation which was subject to the reduction due to claimant's negligence.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's awards were upheld, with total compensation enhanced to Rs.14,22,750/-.
Issues: Whether the fixing of contributory negligence was appropriate and if the Tribunal's method of evaluation of compensation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the use of the multiplier method for calculating loss of future income and confirmed component awards except for lost income during treatment.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court reviews an appeal against an award by the tribunal. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments raised concerning contributory negligence and appeal requests. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court affirms the application of the multiplier method in calculating compensation. (Para 4 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. evidence presented outlines claimant's actions resulting in an accident. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 5. final rulings involve adjusting compensation based on previously determined multipliers. (Para 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award dated 05.01.2024 passed in MCOP No.79 of 2019 by MACT, Special Sub-Court, Trichy.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. Despite the receipt of notice, the first and second respondents neither appeared nor represented through their counsel.
4. Upon consideration, the Tribunal fixed contributory negligence on the claimant at 40% and for that, a sum of Rs.8,85,794 was deducted and the total award amount is Rs.13,74,690/- and the components of compensation granted by the Tribunal is given hereunder:
| For partial permanent Disability | Rs.15,56,100/- |
| For Medical Bills | Rs.1,89,584/- |
| For Loss of Amenities | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| For Loss of Expectation of Life | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| For Attender Charges | Rs.7,000/- |
| For Loss of Income | Rs.79,800/- |
| For Pain and Sufferings | Rs.1,00,000/- |
| For Transport Charges | Rs.15,000/- |
| For Extra Nourishment | Rs.15,000/- |
| For Damages to clothes and other valuables | Rs.2,000/- |
| For Future Medical Expenses | Rs.50,000/- |
Total Amount ----------------------------- Deduction of 40% towards contributory negligence of the injured petitioner is ------------------------------------------ Total Award Amount | Rs.22,14,484/- -------------- Rs.8,85,794/- ---------------- Rs.13,28,690/- |
| Cost Rs.44,806/- and rounded off as litigation Expenses | Rs.46,000/- |
| Total | Rs.13,74,690/- |
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that as the claimant was also at fault, fixing of 40% of contributory negligence upon the claimant is incorrect. His next limb of the argument is that for the head injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has invoked multiplier method, which is not warranted and hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
6. As regards the manner in which the accident had occurred, the available evidence on record is P.W.1. Though 5 witnesses have been examined on the side of the second respondent/Insurance Company, no ocular witness is examined. It is the evidence of P.W.1/claimant that on 08.07.2017 at about 03.45 p.m., when the claimant was proceeding in his TVS XL 100(TN-45-BJ-0613) along Pudukottai to Trichy Main Road from South to North(towards eastern side)he turned to his right side with indicator, another two wheeler belongs to the first respondent(TN-45- BK-1146) came in a rash and negligent manner and hit from behind. Due to the said impact, he was thrown-out and sustained serious injuries.
7. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is deducible that as the claimant was proceeding from South to North side when he turned to the right side with indicator light on, the first respondent, rider of the two wheeler would indicate turn slowly to the western side and he further proceeded towards northern side and thereby the accident could have been averted. Therefore, based on the evidence of P.W.1, contributory negligence is fixed at 50% on the claimant and in view of the same, the findings of the Tribunal is not interfered with.
8. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that due to the accident he suffered head injury and un-displaced fracture in right parietal bone, left temporal SDH, for which, (Ex.P.2-Discharge Summary and Ex.P.6-Wound Certificate). He was admitted on the date of accident / 08.07.2017 at Apollo Hospital, Trichy and got discharged on 19.07.2017. He was given conservative treatment.
9. The Medical Board, Trichy has assessed his disability at 60%. It was categorized as visual disability(Ex.C.1-Disability Certificate). It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he was earning Rs.15,000/-
