Assessment of compensation must account for the actual impact of permanent disability on a claimant's earning capacity rather than solely a mechanical application of percentage disability.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1420 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai, the injured/claimant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are follows:

3.1. On 04.04.2017 at about 2 a.m the appellant/claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-1090 belonging to the respondent/Karnataka State Transport Corporation from Thiruvannamalai to Hosur, which was driven by its driver in a rash negligent manner and hit the Tanker lorry from behind, as a result of which, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries all over his body and was admitted as inpatient in Hosur Government Medical College Hospital and thereafter he has taken treatment at many private hospitals.

3.2. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration Number KA-40-F-1090 belonging respondent was the cause of the accident and therefore they are liable to pay compensation to him. Hence he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On the side of the respondent D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked. Ex.C1 was marked.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, fastened negligence on the part of the offending bus bearing Registration Number No.KA-40-F-1090 and directed the respondent / Transport Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,858/- to the appellant/claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the present appeal .

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would contend that the Claims Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of compensation of Rs.1,55,858/- as against the total claim of Rs.10,00,000/- without considering the age and occupation of the injured. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the injured was aged about 38 years and was working as a Manger in a Tomato mandi earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the claimant only at Rs.6,000/-, which according to the claimant is very low. His further submission is that the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the disability which resulted in loss of earning capacity. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant by applying multiplier method considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the heads of disability, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, transportation and damages, medical expenses and loss of income for two months. Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation to the claimant. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , CDJ 2010 SC 1153, wherein it has been held as follows.

8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss o