Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S. Vijayakumar And Anr. on 13 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC447, 2005(3)CTC36
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
ORDER S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.
1. The National Insurance Company Limited has filed the appeal disputing the compensation amount of Rs. 2,21,378/- awarded in M.C.O.P.No. 1448 of 1999 on 9.6.2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 5), Coimbatore at Thiruppur in respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took place on 6.9.1999.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation of Rs. 2,01,600 awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is on the higher side.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the loss of income fixed by the Tribunal to the claimant who is a labour in Banian Company and aged about 20 years at the time of accident, by adopting multiplier is not proper. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence adduced on the side of the claimant that he has lost the income totally. It is further stated that the loss of income arrived at on the basis of the regular monthly income fixed at Rs. 3,000/- by the Tribunal also cannot be said proper. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Veluchamy, 2005 (1) C.T.C. 38, in which, the Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 11 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."
4. In paragraph 6 of the award, the Tribunal has stated extracting the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 that P.W.1 suffered severe injury in the head and fracture to the clavicle bone as noted down in the wound certificate Ex.P-2 and that he is unable to move his neck properly and there is difficulty for him to bend down and stand erect and also cannot sleep on the floor. There is continuous pain in the neck portion and because of the collar bone fracture, there is pain in the left shoulder and the movement of the left hand is reduced and so, he is not able to work fully using the left hand and he was earning Rs. 750 per week and not able to do any work resulting total loss of income. The Tribunal has observed that such difficulties expressed by the claimant have not been cross-examined for the Insurance company. The Tribunal also extracted the evidence of P.W.2, the Assistant Professor attached to Coimbatore Medical College by name Dr. Mohammed Suber thus:
Therefore, taking such evidence into consideration, the Tribunal has rightly found that such a liability of 35% as assessed by the Doctor P.W.2 is justified, as due to the injury and consequential disability, there is difficulty for the claimant for doing his tailoring work in Banian Company at Thiruppur, and followed the multiplier method to calculate the loss of income. Therefore, it is clear as held by the Division Bench of this Court, the claimant lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, and as such, the loss of income arrived at by the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method as provided under Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is justifiable and does not call for any interference.
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has not challenged the other amounts awarded, viz., Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 14,778/- towards medical expenses supported by the bill Ex.P-8. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the loss of income as contended by the Insurance Company.
6. In the result, in view of the discussions made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself, confirming the award dated 9.6.2003 in M.C.O.P.No. 1448 of 1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. 5), Coimbatore at Thiruppur. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 6181 of 2005 is also dismissed.