JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in MCOP.No. 835 of 2016, dated 30.10.2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Sub Court Dealing with MCOP Cases/ Special Sub Judge), Tirunelveli.

2.The appellant/claimant, who was awarded with a compensation of Rs.2,12,275/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, for the disability suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 22.08.2015, challenged the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal and claimed enhancement of the same.

3.The main contention of the appellant/claimant is that he suffered united fracture in left calcaneum and right foot with implant insitu, compound fracture dislocation of lisfranc joint right foot and comminuted fracture of left calcaneum, that the Medical Officer has fixed the disability at 23.3%, that the claimant was aged 55 years at the time of accident, that he is working as a Conductor in the Government and that he has suffered functional disability.

4.During trial, the claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and two Medical Officers namely, Dr.Ramesh and Dr.Poovalingam as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The first respondent/Transport Corporation has examined their Driver namely, Manoharan as RW.1 and adduced no document any evidence. The learned trial Judge upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned award, dated 30.10.2019, holding that the first respondent/Transport Corporation is liable and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,12,275 with interest 7.5% per annum and costs. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has come forward with the present Appeal.

5.The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding that the claimant has not suffered functional disability and hence, the multiplier method for determination of compensation cannot be applied?

(ii)Whether the quantum of compensation awarded at by the Tribunal is just and proper and is in accordance with law?

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the claimant has suffered crush injury on his right foot, that there were dislocation of joints, that there was a fracture in the calcaneum bone, that he is unable to walk and he is experiencing severe pain while walking, that the medical officer has fixed the disability at 23.3% and that considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have held that the petitioner has suffered functional disability and on that basis, ought to have adopted and applied the multiplier method.

7.Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajaykumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343 :

“Para 12:

“12.Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence :

(i) Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary ;

(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based n the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his e