(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.41 of 2008 dated 15.4.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai.)
The Insurance Company has come up with the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries and disability sustained by the injured claimant viz., Ramesh.
2. It is the case of the claimant that he was proceeding to Chennai from Thiruvannamalai alongwith his relatives, in a Tata Sumo Car, with regard to his marriage, and when they had to wait outside the car near Thathreyar temple as the car need to be repaired, the car belonging to the second respondent herein insured with the appellant, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant and caused grievous injuries and hence, he claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/=.
3. The Insurance Company contested the case both on the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured car and on the quantum.
4. On the side of the claimant, the claimant and the Doctor were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and 15 documents were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the Insurance Company.
5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the liability upon the Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,335/= with interest at 7.5% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier theory for an injury case and awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,800/= and if at all, a sum of Rs.80,000/= alone can be awarded.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal has correctly analysed the evidence and having found that the claimant sustained functional disability and adopted the multiplier theory and hence, the award need not be interfered with.
8. The only question to be determined is whether the multiplier theory can be adopted in an injury case. In DILLI BAU v. MELWIN ENTERPRISES (2013(4) CTC 77), for 70% permanent disability sustained by a civil contractor in a road accident, a Division Bench of this court adopted the multiplier theory for calculating compensation towards disability. Similarly, in REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS ((2013) 8 SCC 389, a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of TV actress, who had sustained 30% disability, has held that multiplier theory needs to be adopted.
9. Following the above ratio, this court has no hesitation to hold that the multiplier theory adopted by the Tribunal is proper and hence, it needs no interference.
10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal deducting the amount already deposited by them within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application.
In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Comments