Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i. The award of the lower Court is erroneous and exorbitant, and there is no loss of avocation in view of the injuries.
ii. That the Tribunal is not expected to apply multiplier method.
It is admitted by the petitioner that he is working even after the accident and he had also produced the salary certificate to prove his employment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis iii. The appellant submits that a perusal of the claim statement filed by the respondent reveals that no claim is made towards the damage caused to the vehicle and there was no award passed as well. This shows that there was no damage caused to the vehicle driven by the respondent and the accident never took place as alleged by the respondent.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.''
9.A Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Veluchamy and another reported in I (2006) ACC 416, sets out the parameters as to when the multiplier method can be adopted in the case of injury. In Paragraph 11 of the decision reads thus:-
"11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(a) In all cases 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 for the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earnings may be ascertained by applying the 'multiplier method' as provided under the Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even 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.