The court held that the multiplier for personal injury claims must be determined based on the claimant's completed age at the time of the incident. Furthermore, while notional income may be adjusted based on evidence, future prospects are inapplicable to pensioners whose pension income remains continuous.

JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award, dated 21.06.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.475 of 2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant in M.C.O.P.No.475 of st. 2020. The first respondent herein is the 1 respondent/owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.475 of 2020 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 29.10.2019 at about 5.00 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in the first respondent’s bus bearing registration number TN 45 AB 0365 from Srirangam to Central Bus Stand, Trichy. He was sitting in the middle of the last seat. The bus was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and when the bus was coming near Cauvery Mini Super Market at Srirangam Ammamandapam, the bus tilted on the left side. Due to which, the petitioner and other passengers fell out of the bus and sustained head injury and multiple injuries. An FIR in Crime No.186 of 2019 U/s.279 and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver of the first respondent. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at Govt.Hospital, Trichy and Neuro One Hospital, Trichy, from 29.10.2019 to 04.11.2019. The petitioner was aged 55 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- as a security. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

5.The first respondent stated that his bus was insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident.

6.The second respondent objected to the claim petition by contending that the first respondent’s driver was driving the bus at a moderate speed by observing traffic rules. Whileso, the petitioner, who was standing near the back steps in a negligent manner without holding anything, lost control, fell down and invited the accident. So, the first respondent’s bus is not responsible for the accident. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

7.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. In addition, Ex.C.1 - Disability Certificate was also marked. On the respondents' side no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.

8.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent’s bus. The Tribunal has considered the medical treatment taken by the petitioner and arrived at a compensation by applying the multiplier method and awarded a total award of Rs.5,16,307/- under various heads.

9.Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner/claimant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10.The short issue which has to be considered is whether the compensation should be enhanced or not?

11.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

12.On hearing both sides and on perusal of records, there is no dispute that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent’s bus bearing registration No.TN 45 AB 0365. The insurer of the said bus, viz., the second respondent, has not preferred any appeal or cross appeal. Therefore, the negligence of the first respondent’s bus driver, as concluded by the Tribunal, is confirmed. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensati