Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Dhana Sekara Pandian on 9 January, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
C.M.A(MD)No.450 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A.(MD)No.450 of 2023
&
C.M.P(MD)No.5685 of 2023
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Pudukkottai. ... Appellant/ Respondent
Vs.
R.Dhana Sekara Pandian ...Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2022 made in
MCOP No.79 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional Subordinate Court, FTC, Trichy and allow this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/29
C.M.A(MD)No.450 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,
For Respondent : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
The appellant / respondent / Transport Corporation has filed
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair order and decreetal order
dated 23.06.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2020 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal III Additional Subordinate Court, FTC, Trichy.
2. Brief case of the claimant before the lower Court is as
follows:
(i) On 12.06.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner was
driving his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-55-AM-1086 TVS
Scooty Zest from East to West direction and turned towards South–North
direction in a normal speed, adhering to the traffic rules. He was driving
carefully on the extreme left side of the road on Pudukkottai – Trichy
Road. A bus bearing registration No.TN-55-N-0808 proceeding from the
same direction was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed and without adhering to the traffic rules. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dashed the motorcycle from behind. Due to the sudden impact of the
accident, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his
body, including crush injury on his right leg, fracture on his left leg and
injury on his left shoulder, cheek and right side of forehead. The
petitioner was admitted at KMC hospital on 13.06.2018 as in-patient and
his leg below the left knee was amputated on 15.06.2018 and thereafter,
he was discharged on 27.06.2018 from the same hospital. Till now, he is
undergoing treatment. He had spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs only) towards medical treatment. His normal condition could
not be restored.
(ii The accident happened due to carelessness, negligence,
and rash driving of the bus driver. The bus bearing registration
No.TN-55-N-0808 belongs to the State Transport Corporation. Hence, it
is exempted from insurance. The respondent alone is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner. The FIR was registered in Crime No.89
of 2018, under sections 279 and 337 IPC.
(iii) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 39 years
old. Before the accident, he was hale and healthy and was working as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Havildhar Clerk in Military and there by earning a sum of Rs.70,000/-
per month. Due to amputation on his right leg and fracture on his left
leg, injury on his left shoulder, cheek and left side of forehead, he is not
able to walk, stand, sit and squat and is also suffering from pain due to
the injury on his shoulder. He is not able to lift any weight and has lost
his hand grip. He is also suffering from facial disfiguration. He is totally
disabled due to the accident and is unable to attend his normal work as
before. Due to the injuries, he is unable to work. The pain and suffering
is unbearable. He is the only earning member in his family. The
petitioner requires a lifelong attendant.
Therefore, he prays to award a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Crores only) as compensation from the respondent.
3.The respondent filed counter as follows:
(i) The petition is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
On 12.06.2018, the driver of the vehicle TN-55-N-0808 took the vehicle
from Pudukkottai Bus stop with passengers to Trichy at about 9.00 p.m.,
near MIOT College and drove the vehicle slowly with caution. At that
time, the petitioner came in his two wheeler bearing Registration
No.TN-55-AM-1086 TVS Scooty Zest without adhering to the traffic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rules, carelessly and, without showing hand signal, crossed from right to
left. The driver of the Government bus stopped the vehicle by applying
break. However, the petitioner came in contact with the bus and fell
down and, for this accident, the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay
compensation. The petitioner has failed to produce the insurance policy.
The burden is on the petitioner to prove that the accident happened due
to the negligent act of the respondent driver.
4. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined
as PW1, one Albert Antony Raj was examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P19 were marked. The medical board issued disability certificate
which was marked as Ex.C1. Court document Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were
marked through witness P.W.2. On the side of the respondent, driver of
the respondent bus, namely, Elamaran was examined as Ex.R1 and no
document was marked, on the side of the respondent.
5. After hearing, both side, the, trial, judge awarded
compensation of Rs.1,68,34,020/- under the following heads :
Permanent disability Rs.1,48,83,696/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For lack of convenience Rs.1,00,000/-
and discomfort
Medical expenses Rs.15,70,324/-
Futre Medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.25,000/-
Nursing Rs.30,500/-
Travel expenses Rs.20,000/-
Damages to clothing and Rs.5,000/-
articles
Total Rs.1,68,34,020/-
The learned Judge directed the respondent Corporation to pay the entire
amount within a period of two months.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation who is
the respondent before the lower Court against the quantum of
compensation with the following among other grounds :
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 appellant submits that the respondent was coming from east
to west and tried to intersect onto the north-south road without following
the traffic rules. While the respondent tried to cross the road from east to
north without adhering to the traffic rules, the accident took place owing
to the negligent driving of the respondent.
v. The appellant submits that the admission of the respondent that
he crossed the road even after seeing the vehicle, would make it clear
that the negligence could only be attributed against the respondent.
vi. The appellant submits that the respondent in order to mulct the
liability on the appellant, failed to make any claim against the insurance
company of his vehicle and the medical claim entitled to be reimbursed
by the respondent's employer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vii. The appellant submits that while fixing the compensation, the
lower Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent received the
terminal benefits and it is also admitted that he is receiving Rs.25,000/-
towards monthly pension.
viii. The trial Judge failed in applying the multiplier. Moreover,
while fixing the compensation, the Judge has calculated 50% towards his
future enhancement of income without any basis.
ix. The appellant submits that the respondent has got only 13 years
of remaining service. Therefore, the trial Judge ought to have applied
split multiplier.
x. The appellant submits that towards the partial permanent
disability and for loss of income, a sum of Rs. 1,48,83,696/- was
awarded, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded towards pain and
suffering, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of economy,
a sum of Rs. 15,70,324/- was awarded towards medical expenses, a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded towards future medical expenses, a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards nutrition, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was
awarded towards transportation, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded
towards expenses for assistant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards
damage to the dresses. In total a sum of Rs. 1,68,34,020/- was awarded
is excessive.
7. The counsel for the respondent/claimant argued that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the appellant driver
and the appellant Corporation is liable to pay the compensation. He
further argued that after the accident, the claimant is not able to attend
his regular day-to-day activities. After considering the entire evidence,
the lower court allowed the compensation which is proper and there is no
illegality. He prayed to confirm the order of the trial Court.
8. During the course of arguments, in order to prove his
contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant relied upon
the following judgments :
(i) In Sebastiani Lakra and Others Vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd., and another reported in 2019(17) SCC 465, in which
paragraph No.14 held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“14. As far as the amounts of pension and
gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of
the service rendered by the deceased to his
employer. It is now an established principle of
service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are
the property of the deceased. They are more in the
nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works
throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he
will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity.
These amounts are also payable on death, whatever
be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same
principles, the said amount cannot be deducted.”
ii) In K.S.Muralidhar Vs. R. Subbulakshmi and another reported in
2024(2) TN MAC 663 (SC), in which paragraph No.14 held as follows :
“14.In respect of 'pain and suffering' in cases
where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a
few decisions of this Court:-
14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control
(India) (P) Ltd.18. It was observed:
"17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for 'pain
and suffering' and for loss of amenities of life
under Sl. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary
loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum
amount of Rs.3,00,000 each under the two heads.
The High Court has allowed Rs.1,00,000 against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the claims of Rs.6,00,000. When compensation is
to be awarded for 'pain and suffering' and loss of
amenity of life, the special circumstances of the
claimant have to be taken into account including
his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered,
the effect thereof on his future life.
The amount of compensation for non-
pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the
award must reflect that different circumstances
have been taken into consideration. According to
us, as the appellant was an advocate having
good practice in different courts and as because
of the accident he has been crippled and can
move only on wheelchair, the High Court should
have allowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000 in
respect of claim for 'pain and suffering' and
Rs.1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life.
We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three
lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000
under the heads "'pain and suffering'" and "Loss
of amenities of life".
(Emphasis Supplied)
14.2 This Judgment was recently referred
to by this Court in Sidram v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd.19 reference was also
made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty20
(irrespective of the percentage of disability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
incurred, the observations are instructive),
wherein it was observed:
"18. A person not only suffers injuries on
account of accident but also suffers in mind and
body on account of the accident through out his
life and a feeling is developed that his no more a
normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of
life as another normal person can. While fixing
compensation for pain and suffering as also for
loss of amenities, features like his age, marital
status and unusual deprivation he has
undertaken in his life have to be reckoned."
14.3 In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand21
considering the facts of the case, i.e., 100%
disability, child being bedridden for life, her
mental age being that of a nine-month-old for
life - a vegetative existence, held that "even after
taking a conservative view of the matter an
amount payable for the 'pain and suffering' of
this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/-."
14.4 In Ayush v. Reliance General
Insurance22 relying on Kajal (supra) the amount
awarded in 'pain and suffering' was enhanced to
Rs.10,00,000. The child who had suffered the
accident was five years old and the Court noted
in paragraph 2 that:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"As per the discharge certificate, the
appellant is not able to move both his legs and
had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary
incontinence, bowel constipation and bed sores.
The appellant was aged about 5 years as on the
date of the accident, hence has lost his childhood
and is dependent on others for his routine work."
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material available on records.
10. In this case, the point for consideration is whether the
quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court is just and proper or
liable to be set aside.
11. The petitioner has been examined as PW1. Ex.P1 the
first information report. Ex.P2 discharge summary issued by Kaveri
Hospital Trichy shows that the petitioner was admitted on 13.06.2018 at
12.18 a.m. He was diagnosed with the following injuries.
1.Chest injury Hemopneumothrax lung contusion
2. Left side ICD done.
3. Right foot crush injury.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Multiple facial fracture.
5. Shaft of Fibula fracture– left
6. Multiple rib fracture – left.
Surgery notes as follows:
1. Wound debridement and wound wash done on
14.06.2018.
2. Open reduction and plate fixation to fibula - Left,
below knee amputation done on 15.06.2018.
3. Arch bar+ ORIF + wound debridement – left leg
done on 19.06.18
4. Medical and lateral flap local coverage+ SSG done
on 21.06.18
After treatment, he was discharged with a request from patient's relatives
request to continue care in Command Hospital, Bangalore. Ex.P.3 is the
lab consolidated report for the period from 13.6.2018 to 27.6.2018.
Ex.P4 is the hospital discharge summary issued by the Command
Hospital, Bangalore.
Diagnosis that he was admitted on 14.09.2018
A. Motor or non-motor vehicle accident.
B. Acquired absence of limb , acquired absence of leg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at or below knee
C. Fracture of lower leg, including ankle, fracture of
fibula
D. Fracture of skull and facial bones, fracture of skull
and facial bones, parked and specified.
The patient was discharged on 23.10.2018.
12.Ex.P5 are the medical bills. Ex.P6 Vidal Health
Insurance in the name of Smt.Chandralekha, spouse of
Thiru.Dhanasekara Pandiyan, which shows that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
authorised to Kaveri Medical Care Centre, Trichy. Ex.P7 is the
certificate issued by Kaveri Hospital that a sum of Rs.13,03,074/- has
been paid by Smt.Chandralekha, spouse of the claimant. Ex.P8 is the
artificial leg supplied by Ottobock, Trichirappali to the claimant. Ex.P9
is the enquiry report as to the circumstances under which the petitioner
sustained injury on 12.6.2018, the Station Commander, Tiruchirappalli
stated that the petitioner met with road accident on 12.06.2018, while
returning to his unit on completion of his leave. Ex.P10 is the
recommendation of the Station Commander, Tiruchirappalli. Ex.P11 is
the information received under Right to Information Act. Ex.P12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
discloses the particulars of person who have been placed in low medical
category. Ex.P13 discharge order dated 28.02.2019 shows that the
petitioner was discharged from service due to non-availability of
sheltered APPT. Ex.P14 Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner during
August 2019 is Rs.66,331/-. Ex.P15 is the photo and CD of the
petitioner. Ex.P16 to Ex.P.18 are Aadhaar card, PAN card and driving
license of the petitioner. Ex.C1 is the disability certificate issued by
Medical Board, Trichirappalli and issued disability at 80%.
13. Ex.P11 is the information received by the petitioner
under Right to Information Act 2005, from the Madras Regiment on
19.08.2019, in which column 20 is the Medical Board proceedings. It
shows that the petitioner was assessed with 60% of disability, whereas
the certificate issued by the Medical Board shows that the percentage of
disabilities of the petitioner was assessed to be 80%.
14. In this case, PW2 one Albert Antony Raj deposed about
the salary of service particulars of the petitioner. From the evidence it
reveals that last pay drawn by the petitioner is a sum of Rs.68,906/- and
the total period of service of the petitioner is 32 years. He joined in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service on 20.02.2000. If he had not met with an accident, he would have
been in service till 2032.
15. We carefully scrutinized the entire records which reveals
that the petitioner who met with an accident had been serving as Havildar
in Indian Army. Due to the injury sustained by him, he was discharged
from the Army.
16. Rule 185(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army,
1961 deals with the disability pension. Rule 185 of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 reads as follows :-
“185(a) If the disability is certified on the basis
of an invalidating or resurvey, a medical board to be
incapable of improvement, disability pension shall be
granted for a period of 10 years in the first instance.
During this period, the pensioner will have a right to
claim reassessment of his pension on the basis of
aggravation, if any. Where the disability pension is
modified, as a result of reassessment, the pension shall
again be granted for a period of 10 years from the date
of revised award provided the disability is still
recorded as incapable of improvement. Each
successive assessment at higher or lower rates will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for 10 years period during which the pensioner will be
given an opportunity to have pension reassessed on the
basis of further aggravation.
b. When the percentage of development has
remained unmodified for a period of 10 years, the
pension shall be brought before Re-survey Medical
Board at the end of 10 years and in the event of the
disability still being regarded by the pension
sanctioning authority as incapable of improvement,
pension shall be sanctioned for life. Thereafter, no
revision of pension will be admissible.
c. In case where the invalidating disability is
loss of limb(s), total loss of sight, loss of one,
amputation, etc., and where the question of
improvement/worsening of its physical condition do
not arise, the award shall be sanctioned for life in the
first instance itself.
17. The petitioner has not revealed or produced any
document in connection with disability pension before the trial Court.
Therefore, the above matter was listed under the caption “for
clarification” on 13.12.2024, and we had requested the learned counsel
for the respondent to produce the pension received by the claimant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. A copy of the pension details issued by the Principal
Controller of the Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad was produced
by the learned counsel for the respondent counsel in which we found that
the injured receives service pension/service element a sanctioned sum of
Rs.25,700/- per month. Apart from that he was also sanctioned War
injury/disability element per month Rs.15,420/- from 01.9.2019 for life.
Apart from that, he received other pensionary benefits.
19. When a question arises whether such pensionary benefit
or regular pension would be deducted from the compensation or not, the
above aspect was settled in the judgment reported in Helen C. Rebello &
Others Vs. Maharashra State Road Transport Corporation reported in
1999 (1) ACJ 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “Provident fund,
pension, insurance and similarly any cash; bank balance, shares, fixed
deposit, etc., are all a 'pecuniary advantage' receivable by the heirs on the
amount of one' death but all these have no correlation with the amount
receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor
Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. It is pertinent to note that apart from regular pension, the
petitioner was provided with War injury/disability pension, which is a
sum of Rs.15,420/- till his lifetime towards his disablement. The
disability pension was sanctioned to the petitioner taking into
consideration the fact that he was discharged from service due to his
disablement and in order to compensate the same, it was sanctioned.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was totally deprived of
his income during lifetime would not be acceptable.
21. Due to the accident, the petitioner’s right leg was
amputated, and he spent a huge amount for his medical treatment towards
the surgery. Further, the Medical Board assessed the disability at 80%
whereas, the employer of the petitioner assessed the disability at 60%.
Now the question arises that whether the assessment of the Medical
Board is to be taken into consideration or the assessment of the employer
has to be applied.
22. In this regard, we rely upon the judgment reported in
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, The Hon'ble
Supreme Court sets out certain guidelines to assess compensation for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disablement of the injured by the Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, in
which paragraph Nos.10 and 13 are extracted as follows:
''10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps.
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 ability (this is also
relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his
age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is
totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the
claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
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 continues to
earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the
left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical
or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the
claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning
capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able
to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant
was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may
not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in
that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in
the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual
physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any
need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of
future earnings', if the claimant continues in government
service, though he may be awarded compensation under the
head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand.
Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service,
but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached
to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of
his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other
suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case
there should be a limited award under the head of loss of
future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning
capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded
by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or
even anything more than 50%), the need to award
compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or
loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a
token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the
head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as
otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of
compensation. Be that as it may.
13.We may now summarise the principles discussed
above:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) 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. To put it
differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the
same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes
that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(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.
(d)Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession
or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the
time of accident."
23.Based on the guidelines in the above case we are satisfied that
due to the accident, the respondent/petitioner's
i) right leg below the knee amputated,
ii) Chest injury Hemopneumothrax lung contusion,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iii) Multiple facial fracture,
iv) Left Shaft of Fibula fracture,
v) Multiple rib fracture on left side.
This Court, taking into consideration the medical records and the fact
that due to the injury sustained by the petitioner, he was discharged from
the military service, and the over-all injury sustained by the petitioner, is
fixing the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner at 80% in light
of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar
reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, case.
24.As far as the fixation of assessment of permanent
disability, we noted that he was sanctioned with a sum of Rs.15,420/-
towards disability pension till his lifetime apart from his regular pension.
We are not going to take into account for assessing permanent disability
the regular pension amount that was received by the petitioner for fixing
permanent disability. However, we consider that the disability pension
alone was fixed as compensation for the disability only for fixation of
compensation as the above pension was sanctioned only for his disability.
We have decided to deduct the war pension from the salary. Therefore,
we minus the disablement pension from the salary Rs.68096 – 15420 =
Rs.52,676/- rounded to Rs.52,680/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25.In this case, the injured was employed in Army and was
left with a service tenure of another 12 years of service. The appellant
argued that split multiplier method has to be applied. The argument
advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted as even after retirement he
would get employment in Government sector under the Ex-servicemen
quota and would get emoluments.
26.As per Sarala Verma judgment reported in 2011(4) SCC
689, if the injured is below the age of 40, 50% additional income of
actual salary is to be added for future prospectus. Hence, 50% income
taken by the trial Court for future prospectus is proper. Due to the above
disability he was not able to continue his employment and therefore,
discharged from his employment. We deem it proper to apply multiplier
method for adopting compensation. As far as other heading is concerned,
we hold that the trial judge properly calculated the other heading and
hence, we are not inclined to alter the same. Hence, we modify the
amount of compensation for permanent disability as follows :
We fix the salary at Rs.52,680/- and add 50% future prospectus as
follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.52,680 x 50/100 = Rs.26,340/-. (Rs.79,020/- = (Rs.52,680 + Rs.
26,340/-)). The age of the injured at the time of accident is 39 and hence,
for calculating loss of income, multiplier 15 was applied by the trial
Court. As per schedule which is proper and we confirm the same. For
percentage of permanent disability, we confirm 80% as fixed by the trial
Court. Therefore, the permanent disability income derived would be Rs.
79,020 x 12 x 15 x 80% = Rs.1,13,78,880/-. We confirm the other
expenditure. Hence the compensation arrived at by us is as follows:-
Permanent disability Rs.1,13,78,880/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-
For lack of convenience Rs.1,00,000/-
and discomfort
Medical expenses Rs.15,70,324/-
Futre Medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.25,000/-
Nursing Rs.30,500/-
Travel expenses Rs.20,000/-
Damages to clothing and Rs.5,000/-
articles
Total Rs.1,33,29,704/-
27.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The award passed by the trial Court is modified and the
Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,29,704/- along with interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit of the amount, less the amount if already deposited to thr credit
of MCOP.No.79/2020 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court for
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, less the amount
already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate interest and costs,
by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (R.P., J.)
09.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
To
1.The III Additional Sub Court
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy,
Copy to
1.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
09.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
