Court : THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Brief :
Citation :
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24/01/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
C.M.A.(MD)No.1 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008
The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Division I) Ltd.,
Chennai - 600 002. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.A.Shanmugathayee
2.G.Vickram
3.New India Assurance Company Limited,
(Through its Divisional Manager,
Having Office at 46,
Moor Street, Chennai -1) .. Respondents
Prayer
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against
the Decree and Judgment dated 12.04.2005, passed in M.C.O.P.No.877 of 2001, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court),
Madurai.
!For Appellant ... Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil
^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.K.Mahendran
For Respondents 2 and 3 ... No appearance
:JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated
12.04.2005, passed in M.C.O.P.No.877 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Madurai.
2.Heard both sides.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 12.04.2005,
to a tune of Rs.3,31,123/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirtyone Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty three only) on the following sub-heads:
(i) For Injuries - Rs. 40,000.00
(ii)For Loss
of Earnings - Rs.2,02,500.00
(iii)For Artificial Leg - Rs. 25,000.00
(iv) For Medicial Expenses - Rs. 63,623.00
--------------
Total - Rs.3,31,123.00
--------------
4.The pith and marrow of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the
memorandum of appeal would run thus:
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,500/- under the sub-head loss of
earnings without any criterion. This is a case in which the multiplier system
should not have been applied at all as the injured sustained amputation of left
leg alone. Accordingly, he prays for modification of the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
5.The point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal awarded 'just
compensation'?
6. During joint trial with M.C.O.P.875 of 2001, on the side of the
claimant P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked and on
the side of the respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.7
were marked.
7. Point: The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation
would submit that even as per the documents produced on the side of the
claimants the petitioner is alleged to have sustained only 80% permanent
disability in view of the amputation of her left leg above knee. However, the
Doctor gave Disability Certificate as though the claimant sustained 90%
permanent disability, which was accepted by the Tribunal and applied the
multiplier system. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is moderate and no interference is
required.
8. At this juncture I would like to refer to the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court reported in 2005(1) CTC 38 (United India Insurance Company
Ltd., v. Veluchamy). An excerpt from the aforesaid decision would run thus:
"11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement "multiplier method"
cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning
power.
(b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of
disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment
or earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?
(c)(1) If there is categorical evidence that because of injury and
consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation
completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of
income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided
under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of
fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if
there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement
in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of
income.
(d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of
employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident."
(emphasis supplied)
The multiplier system can be applied relating to matters where the injured was
made to lead a vegetative or idle life. No doubt in this case the injured being
a house wife lost her left leg. If in all cases the amputation above knee is
taken as one on par with total permanent disability and the multiplier system is
applied then that would be counter productive to the principles enunciated in
the Workmen's compensation Act, which under Schedule I, Part II, Sl.No.18 for
amputation below hip with stump only would contemplate 70% permanent disability.
In such a case I am of the opinion that the compensation could be rearranged as
under:
For 70% permanent disability a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and
Forty Thousand only) could be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for each
percentage of permanent disability as she sustained permanent disability at her
age of 40 during the year 1998. However the Tribunal has not awarded
compensation amounts under various other sub-heads, which were expected to be
awarded as per law. At this juncture I could fruitfully cite the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Ahmed Thambi
reported in 2006(4) CTC 433. An excerpt from it would run thus:
"19.In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and
transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the Tribunal, while
awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely,
pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the
Tribunal shall consider: (a) pain and suffering, (b) loss of amenity, (c) loss
of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc. (d) loss of prospect of
marriage and under the head pecuniary losses, the Tribunal shall consider loss
of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from
medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident
till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also
the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be
separately itemised." (emphasis supplied)
Adhering to the aforesaid decision compensation has to be awarded under the
following sub-heads also. Under the caption loss of amenities a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) could be awarded as she is expected to
look after her family as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
claimant and that she cannot move like any other lady in view of she having been
made immobile. Under the sub-heads expectation of life a sum of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and towards Transportation charges a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), could all be awarded. Considering the
nature of the injury, towards taking nutritious food a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) could be awarded. Towards loss of income during the
treatment period and convalescent period, no compensation was awarded and
therefore a sum of Rs.17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Five Hundred only)
could rightly be awarded as for more than six months she may not be able to move
about freely at all.
9. Under the caption injuries a sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the
Tribunal and that could be brought under the caption pain and sufferings. In as
much as she underwent amputation of her left leg, awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings would meet the ends of
justice. Towards medical expenses a sum of Rs.63,623/- was awarded based on
bills for which no exception could be taken by the appellant. Towards
artificial leg a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded which is quite reasonable.
Accordingly if the compensation is quantified, the total compensation arrived at
by the Tribunal requires no interference; only the captions under which the
amounts were awarded were rearranged and recaptioned. Interest was awarded at
the rate of 9% p.a. during the year 1998. Taking into account the interest rate
prevailing at that time no interference is required. Accordingly, there is no
merit in this appeal.
10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed Consequently, connected
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.
sj
TO
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(II Additional Subordinate Judge),
Madurai.
