JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 27.09.2016 made in MCOP.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge and Special Judge of Pudukottai.

2.In an accident which occurred on 03.11.2013, the 1st respondent/claimant sustained fracture of ulna bone in the right hand and fibula bone in the left leg and injuries on head and face. The claimant laid a claim in MCOP.No.64 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge and https://hcSseprveiccesi.ecaoulrts.g ov.inJ/hucsdergvicees/ of Pudukottai, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The appellant insurance company disputed the age, avocation, income of the claimant and the compensation claimed under various heads. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal directed the appellant who is the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,800/- with 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging quantum of compensation.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier method to arrive at the loss of income when the percentage of disability is only 40%. Further, the quantum of award by the Tribunal under all heads is excessive and requires reduction. In support of the contention that the Tribunal ought not to have applied multiplier method, learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-

i)Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 581(SC).

ii)National Insurance Company Limited vs. B.Rayappan reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 174.

4.Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would submit that the Tribunal is right in applying multiplier method as the injuries sustained by the claimant disabled him from doing his avocation as Tailor. In support of his contention, he relied on the following passage from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande and another reported in

2017 ACJ 979:-

''12.We may observe at the outset that it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. This method, known as 'principle of multiplier', has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. Recognition to this principle was given for the first time in the year 1966 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti & Ors. 1996 ACJ 57 (SC). Again, in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v. Sudhakar & Ors. 1977 ACJ 290 (SC), the Court referred to an English decision while emphasising the import of this principle in the following manner:

''(6)A method of assessing damages, usually followed in England, as appears from Mallet v. McMonagle, 1969 ACJ 312 (HL, England), is to calculate the net pecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to arrive at the total award by multiplying the figure assessed as the amount of https://hcservices.ecourts.gotv.ihn/hecs ervaicnesn/ ual 'dependency' by a number of 'years'

purchase', that is, the number of years the benefit was expected to last, taking into consideration the imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplier or the multiplicand...''

15..... A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoptio