Suresh Vs. The Managing Director TNSTC Salem

1. Not satisfied with the Award dated 21.02.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2024 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court No.I (to deal with MCOP Cases), Salem, the Claimant herein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing and the arguments advanced on either side were heard.

3. Parties are referred to herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

4. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries/fractures sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 23.11.2023.

5. At trial, to substantiate the claim, on the side of the appellant/claimant, the claimant has examined himself as PW1 and thirteen documents have been marked. Ex.P5 dated 10.12.2023 is the Discharge Summary issued by Care 24 Hospital. On the side of the respondent/Insurance Company, the driver who drove the bus at the relevant point of time has been examined as RW1 and three documents were marked. Ex.C1 is the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Salem, in respect of the claimant.

6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by either side, passed an Award for a sum of Rs.9,83,679/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum payable from the date of claim petition. The amounts granted under various heads are given hereunder:-

"For loss of eyesight and pain and suffering - Rs.1,00,000/-; for loss of income during treatment period - Rs.30,000/-; for medical expenses - Rs.4,80,679/-; for transportation charges - Rs.20,000/-; for attendant charges - Rs.20,000/-; for extra nourishment - Rs.30,000/-; for damages to clothes - Rs.1,000/-; for loss of amenities - Rs.50,000/-; and for partial permanent disability - Rs.2,52,000/-. In total, a sum of Rs.9,83,679/- was awarded."

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant strenuously contended that the claimant suffered head injuries and lost vision in the right eye. The Medical Board assessed the disability of the claimant at 36% and the Tribunal, by awarding Rs.7,000/- per percentage, granted inadequate compensation. He would further contend that the claimant was working as a Contractor in Tamil Nadu Water Board and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal had fixed the notional income at Rs.15,000/-, which is very low. It is his further contention that compensation granted for only two months towards loss of income is also inadequate. He would further contend that the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and under other heads are on the lower side and therefore sought for enhancement of compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation vehemently contended that except the discharge summary, no subsequent treatment records have been filed to show that the Claimant continues to suffer disability. He would further contend that the Tribunal, by taking into account the age, avocation, income of the claimant and other attendant circumstances, granted reasonable compensation under various heads and therefore according to him, the same do not warrant any interference by this Court.

9. The manner in which the accident took place is not in dispute. It has come on record through the evidence of PW1 that he suffered head injuries and loss of vision in the right eye and that he finds it difficult to continue his work as a Contractor in the same manner as he did before the accident. It is evident as per the Discharge Summary (Ex.P5) issued by Care 24 Medical Centre and Hospital, Erode, that the claimant suffered head injury, right frontal hemorrhagic contusion with pneumocephalus, bi-occipital hemorrhagic contusion, multiple facial bone fractures, right foot first metatarsal fracture, traumatic optic neuropathy of the right eye with vision loss and chronic calcific pancreatitis. For which, he was treated conservatively. Thereafter, he was referred for disability assessment before the District Medical Board and the disability was assessed at 36% - towards right eye vision loss to the extent of 30% and 6% towards facial bone fracture, as evidenced by Ex.C1, Disability Certificate.

10. More so, PW1 has stated that he was working as a Contractor in Tamil Nadu Water Board besides carrying on agricultural activities and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to substantiate his income details, Exs.P9 to P12 were marked. Ex.P9 is the Registration Certificate of his company dated 09.06.2008. However, all the documents pertain to the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, whereas accident had taken place on 23.11.2023. Therefore, the Tribunal did not take into consideration of Exs.P9 to P12 while fixing the notional income cannot be found fault with. As per Ex.P13, Copy of Aadhaar Card, age of the claimant was 46 years at the relevant point of time. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.19,000/-.

11. It is the evidence of PW1 that he was working as a Contractor in Tamil Nadu Water Board. Ex.C1, Disability Certificate, explicates that he suffered loss of vision in the right eye to the extent of 30% due to the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that multiplier method ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal for assessing the disability suffered by the claimant. The question as to which what circumstances multiplier method is to be adopted in injury cases has been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) TAN MAC 609 (SC), wherein it has been held as follows:-

"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings."

"13. The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity."

"14. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability."

"15. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity."

12. The core issue is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, multiplier method has to be invoked for computing loss of future income. Though the claimant contended that due to loss of vision in the right eye he finds difficulty in carrying on his work as a Contractor. Right Eye vision is affected to the extent of 30%. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the non-adoption of multiplier method by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

13. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the aforesaid injuries and disability, the functional disability of the claimant is fixed at 36% and towards partial permanent disability, a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period, an additional sum of Rs.24,000/- is granted over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Towards pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,00,000/- and the same is confirmed. Towards loss of amenities, an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.

14. As regards the amounts awarded under the other heads, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal appear to be reasonable and acceptable and hence it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The amounts granted by this Court as mentioned supra, after rework, are tabulated hereunder:-

Sl. No.	Description	Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs.)	Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.)	Award confirmed or enhanced or granted or reduced
1	Towards partial permanent disability (36% x Rs.10,000)	2,52,000	3,60,000	Enhanced
2	Towards Pain and sufferings	1,00,000	1,00,000	Confirmed
3	Towards loss of income during treatment period	30,000	54,000	Enhanced
4	Towards medical expenses	4,80,679	4,80,679	Confirmed
5	Towards Transportation Charges	20,000	20,000	Confirmed
6	Towards Attendant charges	20,000	20,000	Confirmed
7	Towards extra nourishment	30,000	30,000	Confirmed
8	Towards damages and clothings	1,000	1,000	Confirmed
9	Towards loss of amenities	50,000	50,000	Confirmed
	Total	9,83,679	11,15,679	Enhanced (rounded off Rs. 11,16,000)

15. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.9,83,679/- to Rs.11,16,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

16. In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed. No costs.

(ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.9,83,679/- to Rs.11,16,000/-.

(iii) The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount now determined by this Court, i.e., Rs.11,16,000/- (less the amount already deposited, if any), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs (excluding the period of default, if any), to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.342 of 2024 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court No.I, Salem, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

(iv) On such deposit being made, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.

(v) The claimant is directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if required.

(vi) The Tribunal shall disburse the amount upon production of the certified copy showing proof of payment of Court fee by the claimant.

Madras High Court

Citations

Relevant Acts & Rules (Click to view)

Judgment Summary

R. KALAIMATHI, J.

Read the Full Judgment