Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.The Learned Tribunal Judge was granted Rs.15,37,671/- only by passing the impugned award. Therefore, he filed this appeal to enhance the compensation.

4. The Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

4.1. The appellant is a yoga master. Due to the accident, he sustained multiple fracture on his head and fracture on the proximal tibia and radius ankle and hence his left side of the body is completely paralyzed. He cannot move without help of attender. His voice had become feeble and hence, he is not able to speak with others. He also lost his avocation. The medical board also assessed 85.5% of disability. Considering the nature of the disability and his job before the accident and his present position of total paralysation of one side and his bed ridden condition, the Learned Tribunal Judge ought to have applied 100% loss of income. But, the amount was not calculated by applying the multiplier method. It is deserving case to apply the multiplier method.

5.1.Merely because appellant sustained injuries, he is not automatically entitled to attendant charges by applying multiplier method. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has applied the multiplier method only in the case of exceptional case. This case does not come under the said category.

5.2. There are no documents to prove the requirement of future medical expenditure and hence, the learned tribunal judge correctly awarded Rs.50,000/- for the future medical expenditure.

7.15. Right optic strut fracture.

7.16. Displaced fracture of right angle of mandible extending upto the right coronoid process.

17. Linear fracture of left para symphysis menti of mandible.

8. Due to the said injuries, he was admitted in the Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital on 15.03.2020. He had taken continuous treatment as in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 01:02:01 pm ) patient from 15.03.2020 to19.04.2020. He deposed that even after the period, he is continuously taking the treatment till date. He had undergone multiple surgeries in the head and also in his leg and other parts. Due to the operation in the brain, he had sustained Neuro Surfical disability and hence, his one side of the body is totally paralyzed. He cannot live without help of the attender. He is also taking continuous treatment in the Live Well Institution of Rehabilitation, Madurai for physiotherapy. At the time of the operation, metal screw and metal plate also were installed in his body and the same is to be removed by operation in future. To consider the said deposition of PW1, this Court perused the entire records submitted by him and there were not disputed by the insurance company. This Court also appreciated the evidence of the doctor. From Exs.P2, P6 and P7, it is clear that he had undergone multiple surgeries in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Private Hospitals as in patient during the period from 15.03.2020 to 19.04.2020. He had nearly undergone more than four surgeries. More particularly, he had undergone major surgery in the brain and in the leg. During the surgery, screws and metal plate have been implanted. The accident happened on 15.03.2020. Immediately, after the accident Covid–19 pandamic restriction was announced. Therefore, he had to take treatment with unbearable pain. Both his attender and himself had undergone many of discomfort. The hospital authorities inspite of the said operation forced him to leave the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 01:02:01 pm ) hospital. The evidence of the appellant is cogent and the same has been corroborated by various medical records. The insurance company also not disputed the above factual aspect. But, they only contended that on the basis of partial disability certificate the appellant case will not come under the special category to apply the multiplier method. This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company. The medical board consists of various specialists. The specialist from the ortho department has considered the operation for the “Proximal Tibia Fracture Radius Ankl Fracture” and assessed the locomotive disability of that part to the extent of 13%. The specialist from the neuro department has considered the brain injuries and the operation and gave a finding that the appellant suffered Neuro Surifical disability. The facial and dental specialist examined him and assessed his disability to the extent of 22.5%. From the over all assessment, the head of the committee assessed the disability to 85.5%. The percentage of the disability is not the criteria to assess the loss of future earning capacity. From the injuries and the consequential disablement of the appellant, this Court reasonably concluded that his disablement comes under the category of permanent disability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 had a detailed discussion to assess the loss of future earning capacity on the basis of the disability sustained by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 01:02:01 pm ) injured due to the accidental injury and laid the detailed guidelines. From the consideration of the judgments, it is the duty of this Court to see whether the injured was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he can continue to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. In this case, PW1's evidence is that his one side of the body was totally paralyzed and he is living with the permanent help of the attender even for his day to day activities. Before the accident, he was running mushroom soup stall and fruits juice stall. Apart from that, he was earning as a yoga master. Due to the above paralysation, he is totally deprived of his avocation. He has no father and has his only son is mother feeding baby and he has no other relative to continue the mushroom soup stall and fruits juice stall. Therefore, this Court can assess the future loss of earning capacity as 100%. Even though, he pleaded that he was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month but, no document was produced. Therefore, this Court fixes the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month and he was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and apply 40% future prospect and calculate the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.21,000/- and apply the multiplier of 16 as per the Sarla Verma case and calculate the loss of earning capacity and loss of future income as follows :

5,000/- which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- p.a and using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs.21,60,000/- for the attendant charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 01:02:01 pm ) Abhimanyu Partap As discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and in Singh Vs. Namita view of the judgment of Kajal, we accept the rate of Sekhon reported in 2022 attendant charges at Rs.5,000/- p.m for 12 hours, 8 SCC 489. looking to the nature of injuries and disability the claimant is required two attendants at least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant charges comes to Rs.10,000/- p.m. If we apply the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs.21,60,000/-