Compensation for motor accident injuries must consider future earning capacity and apply the multiplier method for accurate assessment.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 18, 2021 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.6593 of 2017 on the file of 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Court No.2, Motor Accident Claims Petition) Small Causes Court, Chennai' (in short 'Tribunal'), the appellant / claimant therein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

Brief facts put forth by the Claimant

3. The case of the claimant is that on August 30, 2016 at about 07.30 a.m., while the he was travelling in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-10-K-4530 at K.K.Nagar, Nesappakkam, Thiruvalluvar Road Junction in east to west direction, the SRM College bus bearing Registration No. TN-19-AB-0823, driven in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction i.e., from east to west, dashed against him, on account of which, he had sustained grievous injury. The accident had occurred due to the fault of the driver of the bus. The 1^st respondent is the owner of the bus and the bus was insured with the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company. Stating that the respondents are vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant, a claim Petition was filed before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) restricted to Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) from the respondents.

Case of the Second Respondent

4. At the first blush, the involvement of the 1^st respondent's bus in the alleged accidence was denied and it is stated that on the date of accident, the driver of the 1^st respondent's bus had no valid and effective license to drive the bus. The claimant has to prove the injuries sustained by him, nature of injuries, nature of treatment, period of treatment, age, income and disability through proper documentary and oral evidence. Stating that the amount of compensation claimed is unsustainable, the 2^nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Tribunal

5. Before the Tribunal, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.11 were marked by him. On the side of the 2nd respondent, neither any witness was examined nor any exhibit was marked. The Disability Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai was marked as Ex-C.1.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the driver of the 1^st respondent's vehicle is responsible for the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company, being insurer of the 1^st respondent's bus, is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/claimant.

7. With regard to quantum of compensation, the claimant stated that he worked as Field Executive in Innovsource Pvt. Ltd., Guindy and earned a sum of Rs.12,871/- per month at the time of accident and in proof thereof, he produced the appointment order (Ex-P.1), ID card (Ex-P.2) and the salary slip (Ex-P.3) for the month May, 2016. Hence, the Tribunal, upon considering the percentage of disability of the claimant at 45% and also taking note of the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2016, fixed Rs.5,000/- per percentage and computed the compensation as stated below:-

8. Feeling aggrieved by the meagre quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the Civil Miscellaneous appeal praying for enhancement of compensation amount.

Arguments

9. Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned Counsel for the appellant / claimant would submit that though as per Ex-C.1 - Disability Certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, the claimant sustained 45% permanent disability, since his job requires driving of two wheelers and four wheelers and since his left leg has been deforme