1

Impugned order IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:25.04.2012 CORAM The Honble Mr.Justice K.Mohan Ram And The Honble Mr.Justice M.Duraiswamy C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011 Balaji Aliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Office at No.25/26, Prince Towers College Road Chennai-14. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs 1. P.Babu 2. M.S.Dhanasekaran 3. The Collector of Vellore District Vellore-9. 4. The Assistant Executive Engineer Agricultural Engineering Division Near Thanthai Periyar Government Polytechnic Vellore-632 002. 2 to 4 Respondents 1, 3 and 4 respondent Appeal filed under section 173 of the M.V.Act against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore. For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents: Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan for R-1 Mr.M.Venugopal, AGP (CS) For R-3 & 4-4 N.A.For R2 M.DURAISWAMY, J. JUDGMENT

2
The above appeal is filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore. 2. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal, the insurance company has filed the above appeal. The first respondent was the claimant and the second respondent. Is the owner of the Vehicle. The first respondent compensation filed of the petition claiming the the

Rs.1,00,00,000/-for

injuries

sustained by him in a motor accident. 3. The brief case of the claimant is as follows:(i) According to the first respondent/claimant, he was employed as a Junior Engineer in the office of the fourth respondent and was earning a sum of

Rs.26,481/-per month as his gross income. (ii) On 19.5.2008, he was proceeding in his office jeep bearing Registration No.TNF 8307 along with other officials in connection with his official work. At about 4.40 p.m., the jeep was proceeding from east to west on Madras-Bangalore National Highway and a Ford Ikon Car beariong Registration No.TN 07AB 5197, coming from behind, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the jeep on its back

3
side and the claimant and others, who were sitting in the jeep, have suffered grievous injuries. The first respondent/claimant suffered major injuries on his hip, neck and head. The claimant was admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore for medical treatment. He took treatment as inpatient from 20.5.2008 to 11.9.2008 and he was discharged on 11.9.2008. The doctor had noted that there was grievous injuries on his neck and spinal cord and therefore there was impaired

sensations in all four limbs, loss of bladder, bowel control, x-ray of C- Spines showed C-6 and C-7 Subluxaion. The doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered 90% permanent disability. (iii) According to the claimant, he is spending

Rs.1,000/-per week to the physiotherapist and he could not do his normal work. According to the claimant, he was aged 50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, he claimed a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-as compensation. 4.According to the insurance company, the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, therefore, only the respondents 3 and 4 are liable to pay compensation.

4
The appellant also disputed the age and monthly income of the claimant. 5. Before the tribunal, on the side of the first respondent/claimant, 4 witnesses were examined and 19 documents, Exs. P-1 to P-19 were marked and on the side of the appellant/insurance company, one Senthil kumar was examined as R.W.1, 4th respondent was examined as R.W.2 and one Paulraj was examined as R.W.3 and 2 documents, Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. The tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.60,92,738/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the petition i.e. 23.11.2008 till the date of realization. 7. Aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company has filed the above appeal. 8. Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company and Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the first respondent/claimant.

5
9. The learned counsel company appearing submitted for that the the

appellant/insurance

tribunal ought not have fixed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.30,000/-when the claimant himself admitted in his evidence that he was earning only Rs.26,481/-as his gross salary and if Rs.26,480/-is taken as his monthly salary, the loss award should of be

Rs.8,66,951/-towards

pecuniary

reduced proportionately. The learned counsel also submitted that the award of Rs.5,00,000/-each

towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is on the higher side. Therefore, the award of Rs.5,00,000/-each under these heads have to be reduced. 10. Countering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and that the tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards extra nourishment and transportation. The learned counsel also submitted that the tribunal failed to award any amount towards

6
future medical expenses when there was sufficient evidence to show that the first respondent/claimant have to undergo medical treatment in future also. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that the tribunal also erred in not awarding any compensation towards attendant charges. 11. On a careful consideration of the material

available on record and the submissions made by both the counsels, it could be seen that the injured was aged about 53 years at the time of accident. It is not in dispute that as per Ex.P.10, SSLC Book of the claimant, his date of birth is 20.6.1955. It is not in dispute that he was working as Junior Engineer in the fourth respondent office and as per Ex.P-11, salary certificate, his gross monthly income was Rs.26,481/-. The tribunal fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.30,000/-. There is no material to show that he was earning Rs.30,000/-at the time of the accident. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the tribunal ought not have fixed more than what has been mentioned in Ex.P-11 salary certificate. Therefore, taking into consideration Ex.P-11, salary certificate, we fix the monthly income of the injured at Rs.26,481/-.

7
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not disputed the findings with regard to negligence and liability of the insurance company. The learned counsel made his submission only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, we are not going into the findings given by the tribunal with regard to negligence and liability. Therefore, the findings of the tribunal with regard to the same are confirmed. 13. It is not in dispute that the first

respondent/claimant did not get salary from 28.1.2010 to 9.3.2010 i.e., for 42 days. Therefore, for the 42 days, the first respondent is entitled at the rate of Rs.26,841/-per month i.e., a sum of Rs.37,073/-. It is not in dispute that the first respondent/claimant retired voluntarily from service on medical grounds on 10.3.2010. After his retirement, the first respondent was getting a sum of Rs.9,835/-per month as his pension. Ex.P-12 is the disability certificate issued by the doctor. As per Ex.P-12, the first

respondent/claimant had sustained 90% total and permanent disability. Though as per Ex.P-16, report of the Medical Board, he has sustained 100% total

8
permanent disability, the tribunal took into consideration Ex.P-12, disability certificate issued by the doctor and fixed the total permanent disability at 90%. We find no error in infixing 90% as total permanent disability of the first respondent. Since the first respondent sustained 90% total permanent

disability and also voluntarily retired from the service due to medical grounds, the tribunal adopted

multiplier method and applied 11 as multiplier. Taking Rs.26,481/-as monthly salary of the first respondent if the pension amount of Rs.9,835/-is deducted, the balance voluntary come to Rs.16,646/-. on After opting the for first

retirement

10.3.2010,

respondent had 3 years, 3 months and 20 days of service left to attain superannuation. Therefore, for the said period he would have earned a sum of Rs.6,60,291/-. If this amount is added to the amount of Rs.37,073/-, which refers to a loss of pay for 42 days, the total comes to Rs.6,97,364/-Therefore, the total pecuniary loss to the first respondent comes to Rs.6,97,364/-. The award of Rs.8,66,951/-by the

tribunal for loss of income is reduced to Rs.6,97,364/-.

9
14. The tribunal and awarded Rs.10,000/-towards extra transportation Rs.10,000/-towards

nourishment. It is not in dispute that the first respondent claimant took treatment as inpatient from the date of accident till 11.09.2008 and again from 25.11.2008 to 11.9.2008 and again he took treatment as inpatient from 25.11.2008 to 23.12.2008. Taking into consideration the treatment taken by the first respondent, we are of the view that the award of Rs.10,000/-each towards transportation and extra nourishment is on the lower side and the same have to be increased. Accordingly, we enhance the award of Rs.10,000/-towards transportation to Rs.20,000/-and the award of Rs.10,000/-towards extra nourishment also to Rs.20,000/-. The tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1,000/-to damages to clothing which we confirmed. 15. As per Ex.P-9 medical bills, the first respondent had spent a sum of Rs.1,40,787/-towards medical expenses, which the tribunal rightly awarded. We also confirm the award of Rs.1,40,487/-towards medical expenses. The award of Rs.5,00,000/-each towards pain and suffering, loss of emenities and loss of expectation of life is very much on the higher side as

10
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Taking into consideration the duration of treatment undertaken by the first respondent and the nature of injuries, we award Rs.2,00,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/-towards loss of amenities and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. That apart, we also award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards medical attendant charges for the reason that the first respondent took treatment for several months in the Hospital as inpatient. P.W.1 also in his evidence has stated that he has been taking medical treatment even after getting discharged from the Hospital. Since the first respondent has sustained 90% total permanent disability and taking treatment even after his discharge, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. 16. Since the actual loss of income of the deceased

because of his retirement on medical grounds has been taken into consideration and the same has been assessed and fixed at Rs. 6,97,364/- and there is no evidence on record to show that had the claimant not suffered any injury and the consequential permanent disability, he would have got some other employment

11
in some private concern or he could have carried on some other avocation and earned some more income apart from the pension receivable by him, the question of applying the multiplier method to assess the pecuniary loss does not arise. Similarly, the

question of future prospects also will not arise in this case and therefore, the tribunal is not right in applying the multiplier method in assessing the pecuniary loss. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 35,64,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of life (pecuniary loss) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the award of the said amount of Rs. 35,64,000/- is set aside. 17. Thus, thre shall be an award for a total sum of

Rs. 13,04,151/-. The break up wise details of the awarded amount are as follows:1. Loss of income (pecuniary loss) 2. Transportation 3. Extra Nourishment 4. Damage to clothing 1,000/5. Medical Expenses 6. Pain and suffering 7. Loss of amenities of life 8. Loss of expectation of life 9. Medical attendant charges 10. Future Medical Expenses :Rs. 1, 40,787/:Rs. 2, 00,000/:Rs. :Rs. :Rs 25,000/25,000/75,000/:Rs. 6, 97,364/:Rs. :Rs. 20,000/20,000/:Rs.

:Rs. 1, 00,000/-

12
______________________ Total : Rs.13,04,151/______________________ 18. Out of the total sum of Rs. 13,04,151/-, the claimant is

entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition on the sum of Rs. 12,04,151/- and for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses, the injured claimant is not entitled to claim any interest. If the amount awarded herein together with the accrued interest exceeds the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/deposited by the appellant, the balance amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If on the other hand the amount awarded herein together with the accrued interest is less than Rs. 15,00,000/- withdrawn by the claimant, then the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the respondent to recover the excess amount deposited by it.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar

13
True Copy.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ORDER XVI, RULE 4(1) (A)) (UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012

(Against the judgment and final order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011) (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF) POSITION OF PARTIES In the matter of In the High Court Respondent No.1 In this Court Petitioner

1.

P.Babu S/o.Perumal, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Thorapadi, Vellore District Tamil Nadu

Versus 1. Bajaj Alliance General Petitioner Insurance Co. Ltd Office at No.25/26, Prince Towers College Road, Chennai. M.S.Dhanasekaran Respondent No.28, New No.67, No.2 Contesting Respondent No.1

2.

Proforma Respondent

14
Kalaishetra Road, Thiruvanmaiyur, Chennai. 3. The Collector of Vellore District, Vellore, Tamil Nadu. The Assistant Executive Engineer Agricultural Engineering Division Near Thanthai Periyar Government Polytechnic Vellore, Tamil Nadu. Respondent No.3 Respondent No.4 No.2

Proforma Respondent No.3 Proforma Respondent No.4

4.

TO, THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE-NAMED. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That present Special Leave Petition is being filed by

the Petitioner herein under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and final order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011, whereby the Honble High Court was pleased to Allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

1.A

The respondent No.1 herein is Bajaj Alliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd but in the impugned order it was wrongly typed as Balaji Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

15
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW: The following questions of the law arise for

consideration by this Honble Court: 2.1 WHETHER the Honble High Court proceeded on surmises and conjecture with regard to the paralysis of lower extremities sustained by the petitioner is only a partial disability? 2.2 WHETHER the Honble High Court is justified in law by allowing the appeal and modifying the compensation amount without even following any mathematical method since the Petitioners is only bread wined of the family and was rendered vegetative due to the accident, that too when he was in serving the government ? 2.3 Whether the Honble High Court is justified in law by allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein and modifying the compensation amount without considering the fact that the calculation method used by the trial court was supported by all the evidences available on record??

16
2.4 Whether the Honble High Court is justified in law by allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein and modifying the compensation amount without assigning any justifiable reason for the same while exercising its first appellate jurisdiction? 2.5 WHETHER the Honble High Court has erred in not considering that the petitioner is a engineer by profession and has better and brighter prospective after his retirement from service as most of the multinational companies are

preferring more experienced persons to execute their high profile projects, can such a vital factor could be ignored while computing the future prospective based on which the multiplier of 13 was adopted by the Ld. Trial Judge which was brushed aside by concluding that there is no evidence on record to show that the claimant had not suffered any injury and the

consequential permanent disability, he would have got some other employment in some private concern or he would have carried on some other avocation and earned some more

17
income apart from the pension receivable by him, the question of applying the multiplier method to assess the pecuniary loss does not arise? 2.6 WHETHER the Honble High Court has considered that the petitioner was severely injured at Spinal Cord and has to remain in bed for his entire remaining life which is a vital factor for

commuting factors like Pain and suffering Loss of amenities of life Loss of expectation of life Medical attendant charges Future Medical Expenses :Rs. 2, 00,000/:Rs. :Rs. :Rs 25,000/25,000/75,000/-

:Rs. 1, 00,000/-

Can the High Court without any basis reduce the damages that was awarded by the trial court anticipating the pain and suffering which the petitioner has endure all through his life time

and on what basis the High Court has arrived to a conclusion that when a medical attendant has to always attend to the petitioner for every aspect of his life the attendant charge of Rs. 75,000/- would not be even sufficient for a year as the charges of medical attendance have gone

18
ahead by heaps and bounds over the period, further the Future medical expenses going to cost the petitioner a fortune as the petitioner may suffer many more related diseases which would occur due to his bedridden state were these factors considered by the High Court?

2.7

WHETHER the Honble High Court has also not considered the fact that the basis of insurance policy is to make good the loss suffered by an insured. In the case in hand the High Court acted mechanically and reduced the compensation amount without considering the existing

standard of living just before the fateful day of the accident.

2.8

WHETHER the Honble High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the petitioner as the petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer in Agriculture Dept.

2.9

WHETHER

the

Honble

High

Court

has

appreciated that the medical disability is only

19
90% but in terms of physical ability and movement is concerned it is 100% impaired as the entire backbone from neck to the bottom of the spine is damaged and the petitioner is bed ridden and cannot be moved without physical help of the attendant who is required to be with the petitioner for more than 12 hours in a day.

2.10

WHETHER the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside as it is perverse as the conclusion was not arrived neither on the basis of any of the medical records of the petitioner nor on the basis of the loss that could be sustained not only by the petitioners immobility but the consequence on the entire family?

2.11 WHETHER the High Court has considered the future prospects of the deceased which was appreciated by the Tribunal, hence it has not committed any error by not accepting the multiplier to arrive at the loss that is sustained by the petitioner who is a technical person and has better prospects after his retirement from

20
the govt. service which was ignored by the High Court?

2.12 WHETHER

the

Honble

High

Court

has

appreciated that the petitioner throughout his life has to be dependant and needs medical care every day and the same would cost him huge sum and the other disease that may occur due to he being bed ridden, can such vital factors could be ignored while commuting the loss and future damages?

2.13 WHETHER

the

Honble

High

Court

has

mechanically arrived to a conclusion without following any of the decisions of this Honble Court which clearly settled the issue long before and catena of decision hold that multiplier has to be adopted while computing the loss or damage sustained by a person? 3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2): The Petitioner state that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by them against the judgment and final order dated 25.04.2012 passed by

21
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011

4.DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6: That ANNEXURES P-1 to Pproduced alongwith

the Special Leave Petition is true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5.
a.

GROUNDS: It is most respectfully submitted that the Ld. Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 according to second schedule to the Act. The Honble High Court has given no reason not following the schedule while the Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that to follow the multiplier method as it is the safe guide to arrive at the amount of just compensation. But the High Court in the instant case contrary to this Honble Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Patricia Jean Mahajan And Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 in which it has held that the application of the multiplier depends upon the age of the deceased, age of his dependents, number of his dependents, the

22
amount of dependency etc, but these factors were not taken into account by the Honble High Court while ignoring to apply the multiplier method for calculating the loss and damages sustained by the petitioner herein. b. Because the Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. c. d. The meaning of the word insurance itself means an agreement to indemnify the loss suffered by such person who is insured against such contingency. If that being the rationale the high court reduced the attendant charges to Rs.75,000/-, which is absurd, impractical and dismally low as because even the lowest salaried nurse would be charging Rs.10,000/as a monthly salary to attend to the petitioner. In that case the attendant changes would not last even for a year, thereafter the petitioner had to live with a guilt of burdening his near and dear once for no fault of his, which in essence make the whole concept of third party insurance meaning less and an empty formality.

23
e. Because the Honble High Court is not justified in law by allowing the appeal and modifying the

compensation amount without even following any mathematical method, since the Petitioners is the only male earning member for the family and has been render vegetative due to the said accident . f. Because the Honble High Court is not justified in law by allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein and modifying the compensation amount

without considering the fact that the calculation method used by the trial court was supported by all the evidences available on record. Further, it is pertinent to mention herein that while passing the impugned order the Hon'ble High Court has not given any finding to the effect that how reduction in the compensation is more justified than dismissing the appeal. g. It is most respectfully submitted that it has been held by this Honble Court in Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar& Ors reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197, that the multiplier method having been consistently applied by the Supreme Court to decide the question of

compensation in the cases arising out of Motor

24
Vehicles Act and the said multiplier method has been adopted in the present case by the Ld. Trial Court but not by the Honble High Court while passing the impugned judgment. It is relevant to mention that in the above decision it was also observed that in the report, even the view of British Law Commission has been extracted, which indicates: the multiplier has been, remains and should continue to remain, the ordinary, the best and only method of assessing the value of a number of future annual sums. It has also been stated in the aforesaid report that though Lord Denning advocated the use of the annuity tables and the actuarys assistance in Hodges vs. Harland & Wolff Limited (1965) 1 ALL ER 1086, but the British Law Commission accepted the use and relevancy of the annuity tables in its Working Paper No. 27 by observing: whether The actuarial expert method or of calculation, from tables,

from

evidence

continues to be technically relevant and technically admissible but its usefulness is confined, except perhaps in very unusual cases, to an ancillary means of checking a computation already made by the multiplier method. Even Kemp & Kemp on Quantum of Damages after comparing the multipliers chosen by

25
judges from their experience found a close proximity between the said multiplier method and those arrived at from the annuity tables in the American

Restatement of the Law of Torts. After a thorough analysis of the different methods of computation of the compensation to be paid to the dependants of the deceased and what are the different methods of computing loss of future earnings, Shri Chandrachud Justice has come to the conclusion that the multiplier method is of universal application and is being accepted and adopted in India by Courts, including the Supreme Court and as such, it would be meet and proper to apply the said method for determining the quantum of compensation. Hence the impugned order which has brushed aside the multiplier method which is consistently applied by the Supreme Court to decide the question of compensation needs to be considered by this Honble Court in the letter and spirit of the decision above cited. h. It is most respectfully submitted that the Honble High Court has failed to appreciated that the petitioner throughout the rest of his life has to be dependent on some medical aid and needs medical care every day

26
and the same would cost him huge sum and the other disease that may occur due to the petitioner herein being bed ridden for the remaining lifetime, But the High Court has failed to consider such vital factors while computing the loss and future damages and concluded without taking into account all these vital issues while passing the impugned order, in view of the above said facts and circumstances the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. i. It is submitted that in Baby Radhika Gupta & Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in (2009) 17 SCC 627 wherein this Honble Court held that the High Court deducted two-third of the amount as personal expenditure of the deceased; whereas, according to the settled legal position crystallized in number of cases, it should be one-third. We find substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and deem it appropriate to modify the order. If we deduct one-third as personal expenditure from the annual income of Rs.1,18,314/- of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.39,438/- and the remaining amount would be Rs.78,876/- and if it is multiplied by 17, then the amount would work-out to be Rs.13,40,892/-.The

27
deceased was 32 years' of age when the accident took place and looking to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant Rupees two lakhs on account of future

prospects. j. It is most respectfully submitted that the Honble High Court has also not considered the clear and

corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the petitioner as the petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer in Agriculture Dept. k. It is most respectfully submitted that the Honble High Court has failed to considered that the petitioner was severely injured in his neck bone to Spinal Cord and has to remain in bed throughout his life which is a vital factor for commuting factors like Pain and suffering Loss of amenities of life Loss of expectation of life Medical attendant charges Future Medical Expenses :Rs. 2, 00,000/:Rs. :Rs. :Rs 25,000/25,000/75,000/-

:Rs. 1, 00,000/-

But the High Court without any basis reduce the damages that was awarded by the trial court which was given anticipating the pain and suffering of the petitioner which he has to endure all through his life

28
time and on what basis the High Court has arrived to a conclusion that when a medical attendant has to always attend to the petitioner for every aspect of his life but the attendant charge of Rs. 75,000/- without considering that charges of medical attendance have gone ahead over the period, further the Future medical expenses going to cost a fortune as the petitioner may suffer many more related diseases which would occur due to his bedridden state but these factors were not considered by the High Court in the impugned order. l. It is most respectfully submitted the Honble High Court has erred in not considering that the petitioner is a engineer by profession and has a brighter prospective after his retirement from service as most of the multinational companies are preferring more experienced persons to execute their high profile projects, but these factors were ignored while

commuting the future prospective based on which the multiplier of 13 was adopted by the Ld. Trial Judge which was brushed aside by the Honble High Court while passing the impugned Judgment by concluding that there is no evidence on record to show that the

29
claimant had suffered any injury and the consequential permanent disability, he would have got some other employment in some private concern or he would have carried on some other avocation and earned some more income apart from the pension receivable by him, the question of applying the multiplier method to assess the pecuniary loss does not arise. m.It is submitted that High Court proceeded on surmises and conjecture with regard to the paralysis of lower extremities sustained by the petitioner is only a partial disability which is contrary to the facts of the case. n. 6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF: The Petitioner has set out all the relevant facts in details in the accompanying List of Dates and the Petitioner shall crave leave to refer to and rely upon the same as if incorporated herein verbatim for the sake of brevity. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has good case on merits and is likely to succeed before this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner states that Petitioner has made out prima facie case

30
on merits and that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Petitioner, therefore, it is desirable in the interest of justice that during the pendency of proceedings in this Hon'ble Court the interim relief as prayed for herein be granted or else the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

7.

MAIN PRAYER: The Petitioner, therefore, prays that: (A) The Petitioner be granted petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India judgment and final

order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in

C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011.

(B)

Pass any other order and/or directions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper.

8. A)

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF: Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the judgment and final order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.M.A.No.1242 of 2011.;

31
B) Pass any other order and/or directions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY. FILED BY

(S. GOWTHAMAN) ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER FILED ON . .2012

32
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. IN THE MATTER OF: P.Babu VERSUS Balaji Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors CERTIFICATE Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken herein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexure attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to Leave Petition for The certificate is answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special consideration of this Honorable Court. .PETITIONER OF 2012

.RESPONDENTS

given on the basis of the instruction given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.

(S. GOWTHAMAN) ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER NEW DELHI DATED:

33
SYNOPSIS The petitioner is the sole male earning member of his family who was rendered paraplegic due to irrevocable damage to the spinal cord of the petitioner caused as a result of an accident when the petitioner was traveling in a government jeep, in the capacity of a Junior Engineer in the Agricultural Engineering Division, was hit by a vehicle coming behind. The petitioner filed this claims petition against the respondent no. 1 under Third party insurance scheme claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. The Hon'ble Motor Vehicle accident claims tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,92,738/together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the petition i.e. 23.11.2008 till the date of realization after due consideration of evidence place before it. However the Hon'ble high court the reduced the compensation to Rs 13,04,151/- without considering the escalated medical expenditure already incurred by the petitioner as well as the medical expenditure to be incurred by the petitioner for the rest of his life and subsequent illness and complications which the petitioner had to face due to prolonged bed ridden life style and the Pain and suffering both suffered, subsisting and the further suffering, loss of amenities of life as because the petition would require accommodations to make their home wheelchair-accessible, home health care or personal attendant care, physical and occupational therapy, medical supplies, housing assistance, and loss of expectation as in all probability the petitioner

34
has to lead a crippled life in bed which is almost just a step before death itself. Besides the above said non appreciation of the facts, the loss of income was not calculated by the high court taking in to consideration the employment prospects in the present trend that the multinational companies hire retired government official to oversee their work and also failed to follow the guidelines set out by this court in catena of decisions by applying the multiplier method hence the present Special Leave Petition and