The court clarified that compensation for permanent disability must utilize the multiplier method, ensuring accurate reflection of future earnings and establishing clear guidelines for calculating damages.

JUDGMENT :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.404 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai), the claimant has come up with this appeal.

2. In view of the judgment being passed, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.

3. The case of the appellant is that, on 02.09.2019 at about 6.00 pm, when the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN-19-AK-5260, at that time the driver of the car bearing Regn.No.TN-11-Q-5807 belonging to the first respondent had driven the said car in a rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling, as a result of which, the appellant also fell down and sustained injuries. Thereby, the appellant filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. After contest, the tribunal, vide impugned judgment awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,900/-. Aggrieved with the said order, the claimant has come up with this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation fixed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submitted that, the above said accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's car and at the time of accident, the appellant was only aged about 19 years and due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he sustained 65% permanent disability and the same is evident from the Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Moreso, the appellant is a Mechanic by profession and due to the said accident, the appellant was not able to perform his work as a Mechanic. While so, without considering any of the above said facts, the tribunal, instead of adopting multiplier method had awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,900 /- under the head Disability by adopting percentage method, which is not sustainable. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads are also on the lower side and the same has to necessarily be enhanced.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 respondent/insurance company submitted that, by considering all the relevant documents, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which does not require any enhancement. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the 2 respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The factum and manner of the accident is not disputed by the parties and the parties have not raised any issue on the aspect of negligence and therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.

9. The only grievance of the appellant/claimant is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. It is claimed by the appellant that the appellant sustained functional disability at the rate of 65%, however, the tribunal failed to adopt multiplier method for awarding compensation and had adopted percentage method, which is wholly erroneous.

10. A perusal of the impugned award and particularly the disability certificate reveals that, the appellant was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and the nature of injuries sustained by him is of grievous in nature, and that the extent of the disability sustained by the appellant would really hamper the appell