The Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier method for calculating compensation, emphasizing that the percentage of permanent disability is not the sole determinant of loss of earning capacity, considering multiple factors impacting the claimant's earnings.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 09.07.2014 of the learned Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P. No.853 of 2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, on 18.05.2008 at about 2.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in TVS Star sport motorcycle bearing No.TN-24- D-4793 which was driven by one Sikanthar slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules. At that time, near Nackenkottai, the car bearing Registration No.KBV 7065 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner which came in the opposite direction dashed against the TVS Star Sport Motorcycle in which the claimant was travelling, as a result of which, the claimant and the rider of the said vehicle fell down and sustained injuries and they were immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, and after first aid the claimant was taken to the St. Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment.

4. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KBV 7065 was the cause of the accident and that since the said car was insured with the second respondent/appellant, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the accident took place only due to the negligent act of the rider of the two wheeler. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:

I. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent vehicle?

II. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent vehicle and held that the owner of the car and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,65,780/- to the claimant together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

8. Through this appeal, the Award of the Tribunal has been challenged on two grounds, namely,the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the two wheeler without proper license and the next ground is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/-without any proper evidence and that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability due to the said accident and therefore, applying multiplier method for awarding loss of earning capacity is not justifiable. His further contention is that the compensation awarded under other heads such as loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and attender charges is unjust and disproportionate with regard to the disability suffered by the claimant.

10. Despite notice, there is no representation on the side of the respondents.

11. The alleged accident is established by the claimant by oral and documentary evidence. There is no contra evidence with regard to the occurrence of accident. As alleged by the claimant, but for rash and negligent driving of the veh