Multiplier Method For Compensation Applicable To Serious Injuries Also: Kerala HC Rules In Motor Accident Case

The Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed that “the Tribunal went wrong in applying the split multiplier method. This Court notices that the issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Jayasree N. and Usha Kumari, where again the Supreme Court has frowned upon the split multiplier method and reiterated the multiplier method”.

The Bench clarified that instead of applying the multiplier of '9' and '5' to the pre-retirement and post-retirement respectively, a standard multiplier of '14' should be applied.

Advocate T.R. Sugunan appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Lal George appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts in the present appeal involve a road accident where the claimant's scooter was hit by a bus owned and driven negligently by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded the claimant Rs. 5,54,548/- as total compensation with 8% interest per annum. Further, the third respondent/Insurance Company was directed to make the payment on behalf of the first respondent/owner. Hence, the Insurance company approached the High Court.

After considering the submission, the Bench referred to the decision of Sarla Verma and reiterated that lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation has been a matter of serious concern.

“It was noticed that common man become confused, perplexed and bewildered on account of the fact that the different Tribunals calculate compensation differently on the same facts”, added the Bench.

While stating that even though the landmark ruling in the case of Sarla Verma dealt with death cases, the Bench clarified that the dictum as regards the multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma and reiterated by the Constitution bench in Pranay Sethi case would not undergo any change, if the result of the accident is an injury, instead of a death.

The Bench found that the Tribunal lost sight of the impact of the disability on the personal life of the claimant, especially in the context of 'loss of amenities and conveniences in life'.

“The claimant had suffered left hemiplegia with difficulty in walking and climbing heights. The Tribunal reckoned 'loss of amenities' only at Rs.10,000/-, which is grossly inadequate in the estimation of this Court”, added the Bench.

The High Court, therefore, concluded that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at least under the head 'loss of amenities', which loss he had to bear for the rest of his life from the age of 40 when he met with the accident.

Further, finding that the claimant has suffered as many as four fractures and spinal cord contusion at C3 level, besides injuries on the head and eyelid, and had undergone 64 days of hospitalization in three different spells, the High Court held that a sum of Rs.50,000/- at least has to be awarded under the head 'pain and suffering'.