JAYAPRASAD Vs. REJIMON PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant met with an accident on 30.8.1991 while he was riding a motor cycle and he suffered very serious injury. He approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal contending that due to negligent driving of the scooter which came in a rash and negligent manner hit him and the above scooter was insured by respondent No. 2, insurance company.

(2.) It is contended by the appellant that his right leg below knee was amputated due to accident. This is not disputed. The Tribunal also has seen the appellant. He was only 23 years of age at the time of the accident. The appellent has produced the driving licence to show that he was having a licence to drive stage carriages and heavy passenger vehicles. It is his contention that he was a bus driver by profession. The owner of the bus was also examined to show that he was employed as his bus driver. The owner stated that he was given a sum of Rs. 1,820 as monthly salary apart from bhatta, etc. The notional income of Rs. 1,500 was fixed by the Tribunal. It is contended that the future prospects, etc. ought to have been noticed by the Tribunal and there was no reason to deduct the income as stated by the employer as well as the claim in the petition. However, in the absence of clear data we are not changing the monthly income assessed by Tribunal as Rs. 1,500 per month. The Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier taking his age as 23 at the time of the accident. A three-Member Bench of the Supreme Court in Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2002 ACJ 1166 (SC), held that the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is framed for the purpose of awarding compensation under section 163-A, it can be used as a guideline for determination of compensation under section 166 also. Taking guideline from Second Schedule, 17 was taken by the Tribunal as multiplier. It was held by the Supreme Court in several cases that higher multiplier can be taken when the age group of the claimant is between 20 and 25 as held in Adikanda Sethi v. Palani Swami Saran Transports, 1997 ACJ 939 (SC). In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC), it was held that highest multiplier must be taken when the motor accident victim's age is between 20 and 25 and with reduction in interest rate a higher multiplier under Second Schedule can be awarded. Even though it is contended that considering the present lifespan of a person a higher multiplier should be taken, taking Second Schedule as guideline we are of the opinion that the multiplier 17 taken by the Tribunal need not be changed. Then the question is what is the percentage of disability. Disability certificate shows that he had 40 per cent disability. The Tribunal calculated compensation taking that 40 per cent disability. The contention of the petitioner is that he is unable to drive heavy vehicles or even any vehicle because of his amputation of right leg and, therefore, he is entitled to 100 per cent compensation. He also cited the four-Member Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), wherein it was held that a carpenter who lost his hand is entitled to 100 per cent compensation as he is unable to do the work of a carpenter. It is further contended that even for walking, etc. he needed support and if artificial leg is used it has to be replaced periodically. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation for purchasing artificial knee or its replacement. It is contended that for loss of permanent disability the learned Tribunal has calculated Rs. 1,22,400 taking 40 per cent as disability and Rs. 50,000 was awarded for loss of earnings, for loss of amenities, for loss of marital prospects and for other side effects no amount was awarded. Since his right leg below knee was amputated getting an employment is also very difficult. Considering his profession and considering the fact that for future treatment and allied heads no amount was granted we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded was too low and we calculate compensation taking 17 as the multiplier, Rs. 1,500 as monthly income and 100 per cent disability. If that be so, the compensation payable will be Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 3,06,000. Out of that we have to deduct Rs. 1,22,400 granted for disability and Rs. 50,000 granted for loss of earnings, etc. and the balance will be Rs. 1,33,600. It is contended that compensation granted under other heads are very meagre. We are of the opinion that considering the total amount of compensation no further amount need be granted. The amount of Rs. 1,33,600 should be deposited by respondent No. 2, insurance company with 7 per cent interest from the date of application till deposit. Since his leg was amputated we are of the opinion that 50 per cent of the amount can be withdrawn by him and the balance 50 per cent should be deposited in a nationalised bank for 5 years. He is entitled to withdraw periodical interest.