The court ruled that separate compensation for loss of income is inadmissible when loss of earning capacity is calculated using the multiplier method under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

J .NISHA BANU, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the 'Award dated August 28, 2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.213 of 2022’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’ for clarity and convenience] by the 'Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri ' [henceforth ‘Tribunal’ for brevity], the appellant/2^nd respondent has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE:

3.On January 17, 2022, at 12:45 p.m., the petitioner Sanjeevan, along with one Sakthivel, were proceeding to B.S. Agraharam on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN38-CY-0338, which was being driven by Sakthivel. When they came near the A-Sekkarapatti– Pappampalayam Diversion Road, a car bearing Registration No. TN01- AS-8285, which was coming from the opposite direction and driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, both Sakthivel and petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital in Dharmapuri for first aid and then shifted to Ganga Hospital in Coimbatore for further treatment. He was admitted as an inpatient from January 17, 2022, to January 26, 2022. During the course of treatment, the petitioner underwent surgery on his right leg. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 20 years old and a third-year B.Sc. Geology student. He was also a National Level Kho Kho player and had been selected to participate in the International Kho Kho game. The first respondent is the owner of the Car and the second respondent is the insurer of the Car. Therefore, the petitioner filed Original Petition claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. The first respondent remained absent and hence, was set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE:

5.The second respondent, the Insurance Company, filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition, including the manner of the accident. According to the second respondent, the driver of the first respondent's Car did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The vehicle records of the Car were not in order at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the rider of the motorcycle was not wearing a helmet and was riding without a valid driving license. Since the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, the second respondent contended that they are not liable to pay compensation. Additionally, the petitioner’s claim amount and the interest sought are excessive. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of the original petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner examined himself as P.W.2 and Sakthivel was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4. and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.19 and Ex-X.1 and Ex- X.2 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, neither any witness nor any document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.TN01-AS-8285 and awarded compensation under various heads along with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of realization and directed the second respondent/insurance company to deposit compensation, as tabulated hereunder: