Judgment :- COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.1909 of 2003 is preferred by the Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principle Sub Court), Cuddalore in M.C.O.P. NO. 307 of 1999, dated 20.12.2002. 2. Cross Objection No.42 of 2009 is filed against the judgment and decree made in MCOP No.307 of 1999, dated 20.12.2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Cuddalore. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured/claimant met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 211. 1995 at about 17.30 hours. The injured/claimant, after finishing his office work at Cheyyar, was proceeding in the first respondents bus bearing Registration No.TN 25B 6476 from Vandavasi to Tindivanam for attending his office duty in the M.R.K. Sugar Mill at Sethistope, Chidamabaram Taluk. At that time, the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with great speed and due to the same, it was capsized into the road side near Elangadu Village in the Vandavasi to Tindivanam Road i.e., near Aruvadai Thangal Cross Road. Due to the impact, the injured/claimant sustained head injuries and also grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi. After the first aid treatment, he was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent is the owner of the bus, and the same was insured with the second respondent -Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. By whose carelessness the accident had occurred? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation from the respondents or not? If so, what is the quantum? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondents bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,91,115/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income and Permanent disability 60% Rs. 7,32,240/- Future Medicine Expenditure Rs. 2,00,000/- Future Medical Expenses (i.e., Surgery) Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and Sufferings & Extra Nourishment Rs. 70,000/-Post Medical Expenses, Transport, and Damage of clothing Rs. 7,32,240/- Future Medicine Expenditure Rs. 2,00,000/- Future Medical Expenses (i.e., Surgery) Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and Sufferings & Extra Nourishment Rs. 70,000/-Post Medical Expenses, Transport, and Damage of clothing Rs. 88,875/- Total Rs.11,91,115/- Aggrieved by that Award, the Appellant-Insurance company has filed C.M.A.No.1909 of 2003 and the claimant has also filed the Cross-Objection No.42 of 2009 for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant -Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and vehemently contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, exorbitant and without basis and therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal had not considered all the relevant materials and also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and meagre the Tribunal has not followed the Principles of Assessment before passing the Award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and seeks to enhance the compensation. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, PW1 to PW5 were examined and the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.63 were marked. P.W.1-Ramesh is the claimant. Dr.Bazheer Ahammed was examined as PW2. Thiru.Sridharan is the Director of Metal Aid Private Limited, who was examined as PW3. Dr.Govindarajan was examined as PW4. Dr.Velumani was examined as PW5. Ex.P.1 is the Xerox copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 is the xerox copy of the report of Motor Vehicles Inspector. Ex.P.3 is the xerox copy of the Driving License. Ex.P.4 is the xerox copy of the Registration Certificate. Ex.P.5 is the xerox copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.P.6 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P.56 and Ex.P.60 to Ex.P.62 are the xerox copy of the Accident Register. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.55 are the Wound Certificates. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are the Discharge summaries. Ex.P.12, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.58 are the Medical Reports. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.17, Ex.P.19, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.48 are the Doctors Receipts. Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.29 are the Scan reports. Ex.P.30 is the xerox copy of the Transfer Certificate. Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32 are the xerox copies of the B.E. Certificates. Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.39, Ex.P.41 to Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.50 are the Bills. Ex.P.40 is the X-ray. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.17, Ex.P.19, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.48 are the Doctors Receipts. Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.29 are the Scan reports. Ex.P.30 is the xerox copy of the Transfer Certificate. Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32 are the xerox copies of the B.E. Certificates. Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.39, Ex.P.41 to Ex.P.47 and Ex.P.50 are the Bills. Ex.P.40 is the X-ray. Ex.P.49 is the Trip sheets. Ex.P.52 to Ex.P.54 are the Scan film. Ex.P.57 is the Salary Certificate. Ex.P.59 is the ENT Report. Ex.P.63 is the Medical Bills. On the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, no one was examined and no document was marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the injured/claimant was aged about 30 years. He is a B.E. Graduate. He passed in First Class with Distinction in the year 1993. Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.32 are the Certificates, which also confirmed the same. He was working as a Sales Engineer in Metal Aid Private Limited. PW1-claimant claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month plus Rs.350/- towards conveyance and Rs.10/- as Lunch Allowance for every day. In addition to that amount, he was also earning 2% as Commission for his work. In his evidence, he further stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Due to the accident, he had sustained fracture in skull, swelling in brain, loss of hearing power, disfiguration of face, diminution of size of one eye and multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the said accident, the disability of the respondent-claimant are as follows. "Disfiguration of face, giddiness, fits, loss of hearing of one ear, diminution of size of one eye etc." The driver of the bus was charge sheeted by Thellar Police Station. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Vandavasi. After the first aid treatment, he was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu and also he was taking treatment in private hospitals at Cuddalore as well as at Chennai. The claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital at Chennai from 211. 1995 to 06.02.1996 as inpatient and from 07.02.1996 to 12.08.2000 as outpatient. After the first aid treatment, he was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Chengalpattu and also he was taking treatment in private hospitals at Cuddalore as well as at Chennai. The claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital at Chennai from 211. 1995 to 06.02.1996 as inpatient and from 07.02.1996 to 12.08.2000 as outpatient. It is also stated that the claimant continued treatment as outpatient for a long time. PW3 is the Director of the Company. In his oral evidence he has stated that the claimant was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.350/- towards conveyance and Rs.10/-as Lunch Allowance for every day, totally Rs.5,650/-. In Addition to that amount, he was also earning 2% as Commission for his work. Ex.P.57 is the Salary Certificate. After taking into consideration, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.5,650/-. Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.12 confirmed the same. Pw2 Dr.Basheer Ahmed, who was attached to the Government Hospital, Vandhavasi and attended the victim on 211. 1995 deposed about the fact that the victim came with bleeding in the left ear and the face. He also stated that after the first aid, the victim was sent to Chengalpet Government Hospital. He further stated that Ex.59 is the wound certificate and Ex.60 is the discharge certificate and he found swelling in brain, shrinkage of left eye and disfigurement of the face due to the nervous disorder on the left part of the face. PW.4-Doctor Govindarajan, who is an E.N.T Specialist working in Government Hospital, Cuddalore, deposed about the treatment given by him to the claimant and stated that he found fracture of a bone in the left ear of the victim and loss of hearing capacity and assessed the disability as 25% and issued Ex.P60 disability certificate. PW-5-doctor Velumani, who is a Neurologist in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, has deposed about the treatment given by him to the claimant and stated that he found fracture in his left part of the skull, blood clot on the brain, swelling of brain and the nervous disorder in the left side of the face, which resulted in disfigurement of the face. He further stated that the claimant is getting fits and loss of hearing in the left ear and referred to Professor B. Ramamoorthy by Ex.P-19 about the requirement of a surgery in the event of continuation of fits. He further stated that the claimant is getting fits and loss of hearing in the left ear and referred to Professor B. Ramamoorthy by Ex.P-19 about the requirement of a surgery in the event of continuation of fits. He assessed the disability as 60% and issued Ex.P61 disability certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,32,240/-towards loss of income due to disability and calculated as follows: Rs.5,650/- X 12 X 18 X 60/100 = Rs.7,32,240/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method for awarding compensation towards loss of income due to disability. The correct method should be adopted in the present case is only percentage method. But the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the disability affected 100% of the earning capacity of the injured and also due to the disability, the claimant has become diabetic patient and has also lost his job. In the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (1) CTC 38 , the Division Bench of this Court has formulated certain guidelines to be followed in the matter of adopting multiplier method, precisely in the case of permanent disability, which reads as follows. "11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (a) In all case 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 the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying "multiplier method" as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the schedule. (2) Even if 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." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Chief Law Officer V. M. Pentaiah Chary, 2007 (2) TN MAC 152 (SC), held as follows: "13. We therefore, fail to visualize that in a case of this nature a claimant can be deprived of a reasonable amount of Compensation despite the fact that he has permanently lost his capacity to earn and remain dependent on other besides physical sufferance of such magnitude as to why the multiplier suggested by the parliament should not be accepted. 14. We do not, however, intend to lay down a general law. We wish to point out that minimum Compensation payable in a case of this nature should be considered from the sufferings of disability undergone by the victim. We are not suggesting that in certain situations, the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule cannot and should not be altered but therefore there must exist strong circumstances." Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above Judgements, I am of the view that the Tribunal is correct in adopting multiplier method. In this case, a specific finding was given by the Tribunal that the disability affected the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income due to disability is very reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Future Medicine Expenditure. PW1-the claimant has stated that he is taking medicine regularly and incurring expenditure of Rs.1,150/- per month and Ex.P63 is relating to the medical bill. PW5-Dr.Velumani deposed in his evidence that the claimant has to take medicine for a period of 35 years and the probable expenditure would come to Rs.5,00,000/-. PW1-the claimant has stated that he is taking medicine regularly and incurring expenditure of Rs.1,150/- per month and Ex.P63 is relating to the medical bill. PW5-Dr.Velumani deposed in his evidence that the claimant has to take medicine for a period of 35 years and the probable expenditure would come to Rs.5,00,000/-. After considering the oral evidence of PW1 and PW5, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards future medicine expenses, which is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards future medical expenses(surgery). According to PW1, he was treated by PW5-Dr.Velumani, Neurologist. PW5 deposed that the claimant is getting fits and loss of hearing in the left ear and referred to Professor B.Ramamoorthy by Ex.P-19 about the requirement of a surgery in the event of continuation of fits. Considering the same, I feel that the Tribunal is correct in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards future medical expenses(surgery) and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards Pain and Sufferings and Extra Nourishment. It is stated that the claimant has taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Chennai for a period of 76 days and he is also taking treatment till today. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are the Discharge Summaries. He was in the Hospital from 211. 1995 to 06.02.1996 as inpatient and from 07.02.1996 to 12.08.2000 as outpatient. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the Accident Register Copies. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.55 are the Wound Certificates. Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 are the discharge summaries. Ex.P.12, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.58 are the Treatment Sheets. After considering those documents available on record and the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-towards Pain and Sufferings as well as Extra Nourishment and accordingly, the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.88,875/- towards Post Medical Expenses, Transport and Damage of Clothing. Exs.33 to 44, 44 to 47 and 50 are medical bills. From the evidence, it is clear that the claimant took treatment in Special Ward in Government Hospital and incurred expenditure and also he went to hospitals by hiring a car. Considering the above, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Considering the above, I feel that the amount awarded under this head is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has fixed the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The accident has occurred on 211. 1995. After taking into consideration all the materials and the facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to confirm the interest awarded by the Tribunal and therefore, the same is confirmed. Further, it is pertinent to note that the claimant is 28 years old at the time of the accident and he lost his job due to the accident and promotion in future. He is also a bright student. After taking into consideration of these factors, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,91,115/-, which is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the Award passed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. The finding given by the Tribunal is based on the valid materials and evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company is also unable to produce any material to take a contrary view. Therefore, the Order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant are dismissed. No costs. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company has submitted that entire Award amount has already been deposited as per the Order of this Court dated 110. 2003. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount of Rs.11,91,115/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition, after adjusting the amount, if any, already withdrawn, on making proper application.