JUDGMENT

Challenge is made to the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Hosur, dated 18.09.2019, by the Insurance Company.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on 13.07.2014.

3. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has granted compensation of Rs.16,75,935/- fastening the liability on the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.

4. The claimant suffered fracture and the Tribunal has invoked multiplier method for calculating the loss of earning power is under challenge.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would strenuously argue that the claimant suffered fracture of femur and implants were fixed. At the time of accident, age of the claimant was 26 years and he was said to be a painter. The discharge summary, wound certificate(Exs.P4 and P5) issued by Ashok Hospital, Hosur are the only treatment records. Further treatment records were not produced. It is his further argument that the Medical Board assessed his disability at 50%. He would further contend that adopting multiplier method by the Tribunal is incorrect. Therefore, the amounts granted for loss of earning power and the amount awarded for future prospects are liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant vehemently argued that as the claimant suffered femur fracture and as a painter, it will be difficult for him to stand and do his work as he did before, therefore, the Tribunal thought it fit to invoke multiplier method. To buttress his arguments, the following decisions were referred to:

i) Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2014 (2) SCC 735.

ii) Rajkumar v. Ajay kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.D.Baskaran and the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar and perused the materials available on record.

8. At trial, the claimant has examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondent neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.

9. The judgment referred in Syed Sadiq case was referred in order to contend that the injured/claimant in that case namely Syed Sadiq suffered amputation of right leg to lower end of right femur and left upper arm and the disability was certified by the Doctor to the extent of 24% in respect of upper limb and 85% to the lower limb. The Tribunal fixed the disability at 30% in respect of whole body. The High Court in an appeal fixed the disability at 65%. Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court determined the disability at 85%. For the injured claimant/vegetable vendor aged about 24 years, income was fixed at Rs.6,500/- p.m. By adding 50% as future prospects, it would come to Rs.9,750/- and by applying multiplier of 18, the Apex Court granted Rs.17,90,100/- as loss of earning power [Rs.9750/- X 12 X 18 X 85%].

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that as a vegetable vendor, the nature of job would require 100% mobility and the loss of limb is equal to loss of livelihood.

11. In Rajkumar v. Ajay kumar and another [2011 (1) SCC 343], the injured claimant, a cheese vendor sustained fracture of both bones left leg and fracture of left radius. The Tribunal fixed the disability at 45%. In appeal, the High Court rejected to increase the compensation on the ground that the disability certificate was not reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an appeal held that the disability certificate referred to 45% and functional disability of the body was not fixed and the disability was assessed at 25% and loss of future earning capacity was fixed at 20% and the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately dealt with under what circumstances, multiplier m