APPLICABILITY OF MULTIPLIER METHOD WHEN THE VICTIM SUFFERS GRIEVOUS INJURIES WHICH LEADS TO FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS CASES

APPLICABILITY OF MULTIPLIER METHOD WHEN THE VICTIM SUFFERS GRIEVOUS INJURIES WHICH LEADS TO FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS CASES

When a person sustains grievous injury in a motor vehicle accident, and not able to carry on day – to – day activities as before, finding it difficult to sit, walk or run and attend natures call etc., it will be considered that he sustained functional disability. In such situations courts follow multiplier method while assessing loss of earning capacity.

This aspect has been clearly discussed in 2020 (1) TNMAC 88 (DB)  Divisional manager, Bharti AXA general insurance co.ltd.,  VS  Kalaiarasan & another.

The brief of the case is as follows:

This appeal has been made challenging both the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor accidents claims tribunal.

The first respondent herein is the petitioner / claimant before the tribunal. It is the case of the claimants that on 14.3.2012 at about 4.30 hrs., when the claimant was travelling along with office staff in quails car, bearing regn.no. PY 01 R 8089, from Pondicherry tp Hogenekal, along sengam to Sengarapettai road, near melsangam at karumangalam, a lorry bearing regn.no. TN 29 AL 3979 driven by its driver came in a very negligent manner, dashed against the quails car, due to which the car turned upside down and thereby, the petitioner / claimant and other inmates of the car were thrown away and in the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous crush injuries. Since the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry the claimant filed a claim petition against the insured as well as the insurer, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ as compensation.

Before the tribunal in order to prove the claim, claimants examined himself as PW1, besides examining one other witness as PW2 and marked sixteen documents as EXs. P1 to P16 & Ex.X1. On behalf of the insurance company neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked.

The tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the  driver of the lorry. By arriving at such conclusion, the tribunal made the calculation under different heads and passed an award for a total sum of Rs.27,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till payment as compensation to the claimant and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and permitted  them to recover the same from the owner of the lorry. The breakup details of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal are as follows:

Sl.no.	Head	Award
1.	Pain & sufferings	Rs.3,00,000/
2.	Future income	Rs.20,40,000/
3.	Attender charges	Rs.10,000/
4.	Rich & nutritious food	Rs.25,000/
5.	Transportation	Rs.25,000/
6.	Loss of future prospects	Rs.3,00,000/
	total	Rs.27,00,000/

 

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal as well as the liability fastened on them the insurance company had preferred the present appeal.

Quantum.

The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company would contend that, in the present case, the doctor attached to the government hospital, puducherry, assessed the disability sustained by the claimant at 90% and further the claimant was referred to the medical board for examination, and the medical board issued a certificate, assessing his disability at 94%, which is also marked as Ex. X1. Under these circumstances, with amputation of the right arm, he can work to some extent. Hence the tribunal could not have taken the disability at 100% and awarded the compensation towards loss of future income. Further the learned counsel contended that the tribunal has awarded an exorbitant sum of Rs.3,00,000/ under the head pain and sufferings and the same requires suitable reduction. The learned counsel submitted that even the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads are also exorbitant, and thus sought for suitable reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal under the aforesaid heads.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent / claimant would contend that on account of the accident, the first respondent / claimant sustained grievous crush injury in the right arm with distal neuro vascular deficit with rigor mortis, complete occlusion of proximal right brachial artery, right above elbow amputated with laceration, contusion and abrasion all over the body resulting in permanent disability to the claimant, and therefore he was admitted in the jipmer hospital and thereafter, shifted to miot hospital, Chennai and consequently, right elbow was amputated, and with these difficulties, he is finding it difficult to sit, walk or run and even attend nature calls. Further, due to amputation of the right arm, the claimant cannot do any job and seek for any other employment opportunity. It is further submitted that since the claimant is aged about 22 years at the time of the accident, and due to the disability sustained by him even at the young age, his marital prospects is also at brink. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the tribunal fixed functional disability as 100% and awarded compensation for the loss of income and the same is just and fair.

The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent / claimant was working in a private concern, drawing salary of Rs.10,000/. In support of the same, Ex P16, salary certificate was marked and Pw2 was examined who deposed that the first respondent / claimant was drawing a sum of Rs.15,000/. However the tribunal fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/ and wrongly applied the multiplier as 17 which resulted in awarding a lesser sum of Rs.20,40,000/ towards future income. The learned counsel pointed out that the claimant was aged 22 years at the time of accident and for the age group of 22 years, the multiplier applicable is 18 as held by hon’ble supreme court in sarala verma  VS Delhi transport corporation 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 but the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier 17 and determined the compensation towards loss of future income, and therefore requires appropriate enhancement. Further the tribunal has failed to award anything towards future prospects and as held by hon,ble supreme court in National insurance co.ltd.,  VS pranay sethi and others, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (sc), the claimant entitled to 40% of the income towards future prospects.

Depending upon this the court comes to a conclusion that fixing of 100% disability for the injuries sustained by him is correct, and fixing Rs.10,000/ as monthly salary also correct. But adopting multiplier of 17 and not adding compensation for future prospects is also on the wrong side. Hence multiplier of 18 has to be adopted and 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of future income is determined in the following manner:

Rs.10,000 + 40%     =    Rs. 14,000/

Rs.14,000   x  12   x  18  = Rs. 30,24,000/

Therefore compensation awarded by the tribunal towards future income at Rs. 20,40,000/ is modified and enhanced to Rs.30,24,000/

Consequently the total compensation amount of Rs.27,00,000/ awarded by the tribunal is hereby modified and enhanced to Rs.32,84,000/

For such kind of functional disability compensation is awarded by the court in this basis.