The principal of multiplier is applicable in case of 20% permanent disability incurred in a motor vehicle accident: Bombay High Court
The claimant is entitled to receive compensation by applying the principal of multiplier in addition to the compensation granted by the Hon’ble tribunal for the 20% permanent disability incurred during the motor vehicle accident, in addition, interest @7.5% on the whole amount from the date of institution of the claim till the realization such an opinion was given by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court before Hon’ble Justice V. M. DESHPANDE in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rameshwar Daulatrao Shinde [FIRST APPEAL NO.354/2010]. 
The facts of the case were related to a judgment passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola dated 08.12.2009 in M.A.C.P. No.233/2004. The appellant was a  Sectional Engineer who while proceeding for his official duty via motorcycle he met an accident with a tractor who was duly insured by the respondent insurance company. As a result of the accident, the petitioner incurred several injuries along with a 20% permanent disability.

The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that the learned Tribunal was erroneous in its judgment and award by reason of not applying the principal of multiplier and not granting interest.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court also held “The appellant will be entitled to receive compensation as granted by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola. In addition to that, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1,09,200/- and also interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount ready deposited. In addition to that, interest on Rs.1,09,200/- from the date of petition till its realization.”
Click here to read the judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were related to a judgment passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola dated 08.12.2009 in M.A.C.P. No.233/2004. The appellant was a  Sectional Engineer who while proceeding for his official duty via motorcycle he met an accident with a tractor who was duly insured by the respondent insurance company. As a result of the accident, the petitioner incurred several injuries along with a 20% permanent disability. 
The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that the learned Tribunal was erroneous in its judgment and award by reason of not applying the principal of multiplier and not granting interest.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court also held “The appellant will be entitled to receive compensation as granted by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola. In addition to that, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1,09,200/- and also interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount ready deposited. In addition to that, interest on Rs.1,09,200/- from the date of petition till its realization.”
Click here to read the judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that the learned Tribunal was erroneous in its judgment and award by reason of not applying the principal of multiplier and not granting interest. 
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court also held “The appellant will be entitled to receive compensation as granted by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola. In addition to that, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1,09,200/- and also interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount ready deposited. In addition to that, interest on Rs.1,09,200/- from the date of petition till its realization.”
Click here to read the judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court also held “The appellant will be entitled to receive compensation as granted by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola. In addition to that, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1,09,200/- and also interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount ready deposited. In addition to that, interest on Rs.1,09,200/- from the date of petition till its realization.”
 on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 1fa354.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPURFIRST APPEAL NO.354 2010Arvind Rajaram Nikhade aged about 55 years Occ. Service r o Balvant Colony Near Mitra Nagar Kaulkhed Road Akola Tq. Dist. Akola. .....APPELLANT...V E R S U S...1The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Akola through its Divisional Manager Rayat Haveli Old Cotton Market Akola Tq. Dist. Akola.2.Rameshwar Daulatrao Shinde Aged about adult Occ. Tractor Owner r o Warla Tq. Dist. Washim....RESPONDENT S Mr. C. A. Joshi Advocate for appellant.Mr. P. N. Khadgi Advocate for respondent no.1.Mr. A. A. Choube Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: V. M. DESHPANDE J. DATED : 28.10.2021 ORAL JUDGMENT1.Heard Mr. Joshi learned counsel for appellant Mr.Khadgi learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Choube learned counsel for respondent no.2 owner of offending vehicle. on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 2fa354.odt2.Cause for giving rise to the filing of the present appealis judgment passed by learned Member Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal Akola dated 08.12.2009 in M.A.C.P. No.233 2004. Theappellant is Sectional Engineer. While proceeding for his officialwork to village Kumbhi on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH 30 C 5677 he met with an accident near village Pimpalgaon.The offending vehicle was tractor owned by respondent no.2having registration No. MH 30 I 5259 which was duly insuredwith respondent no.1 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Due toaccident appellant suffered injuries and was required to be anindoor patient in various hospitals and he has suffered 20%permanent disability.3.The appellant approached to the Claims Tribunal byfiling claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.The said was registered as MACP No. 233 2004. In the said claimpetition appellant claimed Rs.10 00 000 as compensation fromrespondent in the said claim petition. On being noticed insurancecompany as well as the tractor owner appeared and filed theirwritten statements. The common thread of their defence was thatthe appellant also contributed in the accident. In addition to the on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 3fa354.odtsaid it was the defence of the insurance company that the tractordriver was not holding license and therefore i.e. the breach ofcondition of the policy. Therefore the insurance company is notliable for payment of compensation.4.Parties went for trial. The appellant entered intowitness box. He was thoroughly cross examined. He alsoexamined one witness Dr. Abhay Kashinath Patil OrthopedicSurgeon as his witness. Nobody entered into the witness box forand on behalf of insurance company. However respondent no.2examined one Santosh Savant as witness. This Santosh Savant atthe relevant time was driving the vehicle and by examining saidSantosh Savant respondent no.2 has in fact challenged the claimof insurance company that the driver was not holding the license.5.After appreciation of the pleadings documents andevidence as brought on record the learned Member MACT videjudgment and award dated 08.12.2009 partly allowed the claimput forth by the appellant. According to award respondent nos.1and 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable to paycompensation of Rs.3 34 000 inclusive of interim compensation on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 4fa354.odtunder Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also observedby the learned Member of the Tribunal that the appellant will beentitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in case insurancecompany and the tractor owner fail to deposit the compensationas directed within a period of 60 days.6.Felt aggrieved thereby appellant has filed presentappeal. According to learned counsel for appellant compensationgranted to him is inadequate. On the other hand learned counselfor the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has grantedjust and adequate compensation. Further the respondents did notchallenge the finding recorded against them.7.In view of the rival submissions made before this Court following points arise for determination. Sr.No.PointsAnswer1Whether the compensation as awardedby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal infavour of the appellant is just andadequate In the negative2. What order As per final order on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 5fa354.odt8.There is no dispute in this case that the appellant wasdischarging his duty as Sectional Engineer with Public WorksDepartment Sub Division Mehkar District Buldhana. From theimpugned judgment itself it is clear that the learned Member ofthe Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant on the basisof his monthly salary as Rs.14 000 which is not seriouslychallenged. The learned Tribunal has granted compensation byconsidering 20% disability. While considering the income by 20% disability the learned Member has not applied the multiplierwhich is seriously challenged before this Court. The law is wellsettled on this aspect. It would be useful to refer here theauthoritative pronouncement of the Honb’le Court in SandeepKhanuja Vs. Atul Dande & anr. reported in 2017Mh. l. J. 1.Paragraph nos.12 and 13 thereof are as under:“12.We may observe at the outset that it is now asettled principle repeatedly stated and restated time andagain by this Court that in awarding compensation themultiplier method is logically sound and legally wellestablished. This method known as principle of multiplier has been evolved to quantify the loss of income as a resultof death or permanent disability suffered in an accident.Recognition to this principle was given for the first time inthe year 1966 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.Subhagwanti & Ors.3 SCC 649. Again in Madhya on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 6fa354.odtPradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh Bhopal v.Sudhakar & Ors. 3 SCC 64 the Court referred to anEnglish decision while emphasising the import of thisprinciple in the following manner: “4. A method of assessing damages usually followedin England as appears from Mallet v. McMonagle 1969 ACJ 312is to calculate the netpecuniary loss upon an annual basis and to “arrive atthe total award by multiplying the figure assessed asthe amount of the annual ‘dependency’ by a numberof ‘year s purchase’ that is the number of years thebenefit was expected to last taking into considerationthe imponderable factors in fixing either the multiplieror the multiplicand...” 13.While applying the multiplier method futureprospects on advancement in life and career are taken intoconsideration. In a proceeding under Section 166 of theAct relating to death of the victim multiplier method isapplied after taking into consideration the loss of income tothe family of the deceased that resulted due to the saiddemise. Thus the multiplier method involves theascertainment of the loss of dependency or themultiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the caseand capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriatemultiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined bythe age of the deceased or that of the claimant as the casemay be. In injury cases the description of the nature ofinjury and the permanent disablement are the relevantfactors and it has to be seen as to what would be theimpact of such injury disablement on the earning capacityof the injured. This Court in the case of U.P. State Road on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 7fa354.odtTransport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.(1996) 4 SCC 362 justified the application of multipliermethod in the following manner:“13. It was rightly clarified that there should be nodeparture from the multiplier method on the groundthat Section 110 B Motor Vehicles Act 1939(corresponding to the present provision of Section168 Motor Vehicles Act 1988) envisaged payment of‘just’ compensation since the multiplier method is theaccepted method for determining and ensuringpayment of just compensation and is expected tobring uniformity and certainty of the awards made allover the country.” The multiplier system is thus based on thedoctrine of equity equality and necessity. A departuretherefrom is to be done only in rare and exceptional cases.”9.In view of the aforesaid in my view learned Member MACT has committed error in observing that since the learnedMember is considering 20% disability it is not necessary to applymultiplier in this case. Therefore that finding needs to be upset inthis appeal.10.Similarly the learned Member in my view has erredin not granting interest. The learned Member has granted 9%interest if the insurance company or tractor owner fail to depositawarded amount in the Court within 60 days. That itself shows on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 8fa354.odtand speaks that the learned Member has disallowed the claim ofthe interest of the appellant. In my view the appellant will beentitled for the interest also.11.In view of the aforesaid in addition to the amountwhat is already awarded in favour of the appellant followingamount will have to be awarded additionally.Rs.14 000 salary per month X 12 Months =1 68 000 20% disability i.e. Rs. 8400 . Rs.8400 will have to be multiplied by the multiplier.12.Now what should be the multiplier in this case. As perExh. 51 which is case summary age of the appellant is recordedby the doctor as 49 years. Similarly Exh. 52 is the certificategiven by Vidarbha Neurosurgical and Spinal Institute Akola. Thatalso shows that age of the appellant in the year 2004 was 49years. The appellant adduced his evidence in the year 2008 andthat time he gave his age as 52 yeas.13.In view of the documentary evidence in the nature ofthe certificates issued by the doctor which is not challenged by on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 9fa354.odtthe insurance company the Court can safely come to theconclusion that at the time of accident the appellant was agedabout 49 years.14.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Courtin Sarla Verma and Ors. .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.Reported in 6 SCC 121 the multiplier will be 13.Therefore 8400 X 13 = 1 09 200 . Thus this is the amount forwhich the appellant will be entitled in addition to the amountalready awarded in appeal. Plus he will be entitled to interest atthe rate of 7.5% p.a. on the amount which is already awarded bythe Tribunal. Consequently following order is passed.ORDER(i)The appeal is partly allowed.(ii)Judgment and award dated 08.12.2009passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.233 2004 is set aside to the extent of not grantingcompensation by applying the principal of multiplierand not granting interest.(iii)The appellant will be entitled to receivecompensation as granted by learned Member MotorAccident Claims Tribunal Akola. In addition to that the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1 09 200 and alsointerest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount on 30 10 2021 on 02 11 10fa354.odtalready deposited. In addition to that interest onRs.1 09 200 from the date of petition till itsrealization.(iv)Statement of learned counsel of theinsurance company is accepted that the insurancecompany will deposit the amount as granted in thisjudgment before the tribunal within a period of 2 ½months from today.After the amount is deposited theappellant would be entitled to withdraw the same.(v)Decree be drawn up accordingly. JUDGEkahale 