THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs DHARMAN

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CMA No. 1467 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011917732023}
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Villupuram
Ltd, Salamedu, Trichy to Chennai main Road,
Villupuram.
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
Dharman ..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award passed in MCOP No.335 of 2015 on
the file Additional Subordinate Court, Kalakurchi before the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal at Kalakurchi,.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.C.R.Sureshkumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr.T.Balachandran
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful Appellant/Transport Corporation has preferred the present
civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in a road
accident.
3. According to the claimant, on 26.07.2015, at about 9.50 p.m., while he
was riding a Bajaj CD 100 bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 5764 on the
Kallakurichi National Highway Road at Thiryagadurugam, near Sandhaimedu
Road, a bus bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 2281, driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner from Kallakurichi towards Thiryagadurugam in the
opposite direction, dashed against his two-wheeler. Due to the impact, the
claimant sustained multiple injuries all over his body.
4. The respondent Transport Corporation filed a counter statement
denying the manner of the accident. It was contended that the Thiryagadurugam
Police had registered a criminal case against the claimant, who was riding the
two-wheeler. It was further contended that the claimant did not possess a valid
driving licence and was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and an
eyewitness, namely, Kulanthaivel, was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P11 were
marked. On behalf of the respondent/Transport Corporation, the driver of the
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
bus was examined as R.W.1, and no document was marked. The Disability
Certificate was marked as Ex.C1.
6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal
held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
bus driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Medical Board
assessed the claimant’s permanent locomotor disability affecting his right upper
and lower limbs at 61%. Considering the nature of the claimant’s avocation as
a labourer and the physical fitness required to perform his day-to-day work, the
Tribunal held that the disability had a significant impact on his ability to earn
his livelihood. Accordingly, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method and
awarded a sum of Rs.9,83,808/- under the head of permanent disability/loss of
earning capacity. The Tribunal also awarded compensation under various other
heads as detailed below :-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Disability Rs.9,83,808/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 14,255/-
3 Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4 Transportation Rs. 15,000/-
5 Nutrition Rs. 15,000/-
6 Attender charges Rs.20,000/-
7 Mental agony, pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
8 Damages to clothes Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs.11,15,063/-
rounded off to
Rs.11,15,000/-
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
7. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant Transport Corporation has
preferred the present appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation would
submit that the Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that the First Information
Report had been registered against the claimant, who was riding the two-
wheeler. It was further contended that the alleged eyewitness had deposed that
the claimant dashed against the right side of the bus. The Tribunal had also
failed to consider the fact that, as per Ex.P7/ MVI report, the right side of the
bus, from the front to the rear centre portion, had sustained dents. Therefore,
the Tribunal had erred in holding that the accident had occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the bus driver, without properly appreciating the
evidence of RW1. It was further contended that, in the absence of evidence
establishing functional disability and actual loss of earning capacity, the
Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method. The compensation
awarded under the other heads are also on the higher side and the same has to be
reduced.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant
would submit that the manner, in which the accident had occurred was clearly
established through the evidence of P.W.2, who was an eyewitness to the
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
occurrence. It was further submitted that a criminal case has also been
registered against the bus driver. Though the M.V.I. Report reveals that the
right side of the bus, from the front to the rear centre portion, had sustained
dents, the accident had occurred at a turning on the road, and such damage
could have been caused when the two vehicles collided with each other.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident had occurred solely
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle .
10. The learned counsel further would submit that with regard to the
quantum of compensation, considering the nature of the claimant’s avocation,
the Tribunal had rightly fixed his notional monthly income of Rs.8,400/-.
Further, the Medical Board has assessed the claimant’s permanent locomotor
disability at 61%, which had a considerable impact on his day-to-day activities
and earning capacity. Considering the nature of disability and its impact on the
claimant’s livelihood, the Tribunal had rightly adopted the multiplier method.
Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of
permanent disability /loss of earning capacity as well as under the other heads is
just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
12. According to the claimant on 26.07.2015 at about 9.50 p.m. while he
was riding his two wheeler on the Kallakurichi National Highway Road at
Thiyagadurgam near Sandhaimedu, the driver of the bus, which was coming
from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained multiple
injuries all over his body.
13. In order to establish the negligence on the part of the bus driver, the
claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined an eyewitness to the
occurrence as P.W.2. P.W,1 deposed regarding the manner in which the
accident had occurred and stated that the accident was solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus driver. Further, the eye-witness, who was examined
as P.W.2 he has deposed that the claimant was riding his two wheeler ahead of
him and that the TNSTC bus was coming from the opposite direction. He
further stated that the claimant’s vehicle hit the front right side of the bus. He
also admitted that neither the eyewitness nor the claimant had lodged a
complaint before the police station. He further admitted that a criminal case was
registered against the claimant and stated that the claimant had been taken to the
hospital following the accident.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
14. According to the appellant/Transport Corporation, the accident had
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant, who was
riding the two wheeler, In order to substantiate its contention, the driver of the
bus was examined as RW1. He deposed that the claimant had dashed his two
wheeler against the rear portion of the bus. However, a perusal of Ex.P7/MVI
Report reveals that the right side of the bus, from the front to the rear centre
portion, had sustained dents. During his cross-examination, R.W1 categorically
admitted that the accident had occurred at a turning on the road. It is relevant
to note that the mere registration of an FIR against the claimant, based on the
complaint lodged by the bus driver, would not, by itself, establish that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant or rule out
negligence on the part of the bus driver. It is also relevant to note that in
support of the testimony of R.W.1, the appellant has not chosen to examine any
independent witness or any passenger who travelled in the bus at the time of
accident. On the other hand, the manner in which the accident had occurred
and the negligence on the part of the bus driver have been clearly spoken to by
P.W.1 and P.W2. Nothing material has been elicited during their cross-
examination to discredit their testimony.
15. In the above circumstances, considering the evidence of P.W1, P.W.2
and RW1, particularly the admission of R.W.1 that the accident had occurred at
a turning on the road, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the bus driver.
16. In the present case, the claimant had sustained locomotor disability
wrt. right upper and lower limbs and the Medical Board had assessed his
permanent locomotor disability at 61%. The claimant was working as a driver at
the time of accident. In these circumstances, the question arises for
consideration whether the nature and extent of the permanent disability suffered
by the claimant have resulted in functional disability affecting his earning
capacity, thereby warranting the adoption of the multiplier method.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343],
wherein it has been held that the Tribunal must assess not merely the extent of
permanent disability but also its actual impact on the claimant’s earning
capacity, which may differ from the medical percentage of disability. Such an
assessment requires consideration of the claimant’s avocation prior to the
accident, the nature of functions performed by him, the extent to which those
functions have been affected by the disability and whether he can continue to
earn his livelihood despite the disability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
emphasised that permanent disability and loss of earning capacity are distinct
concepts, except in cases where the evidence establishes that they coincide .
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
18. Applying the ratio laid down in the above Judgment to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the view that the claimant was employed as a
driver at the time of accident. The nature of his employment necessarily
involves prolonged standing, walking, movement, physical alertness and the
effective use of his limbs. Therefore, the permanent locomotor disability
affecting his right upper and lower limbs would have a direct bearing on his
ability to perform his occupational duties.
19. A perusal of Ex.P2- Accident Register issued by the Government
Headquarters Hospital, Kallakurichi, reveals that the claimant was admitted on
26.07.2015. A perusal of Ex.P3 – Discharge summary issued by the JIPMER
Hospital, Puducherry shows that the claimant had undergone treatment from
27.07.2015 to 30.07.2015, during which, he had undergone surgery. A further
perusal of Ex. P4, the discharge summary issued by Rajiv Gandhi Government
Hospital, reveals that the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment from
31.07.2015 to 05.08.2015 for six days. Further, Ex.P5 reveals that the claimant
had undergone inpatient treatment at Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College
and Hospital, Puducherry, from 18.08.2015 to 24.08.2015. The claimant had
also appeared before the Medical Board, which assessed his permanent
locomotor disability affecting his right upper and lower limb at 61 %
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
20 . The above medical records and discharge summaries establish that
the claimant had sustained serious injuries, undergone multiple surgical
interventions and required prolonged treatment. The assessment of 61%
permanent locomotor disability by the Medical Board further establishes the
extent of the physical impairment suffered by him.
21. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the
nature of his avocation and the functional requirements of his employment, this
Court is of the view that the permanent disability has a direct bearing on his
earning capacity. This is not a case where the permanent physical disability can
be treated as having no impact on the claimant’s future earning capacity. In the
circumstances, this Court finds that the permanent locomotor disability suffered
by the claimant has resulted in functional disability affecting his earning
capacity. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj
Kumar’s case (cited supra) , this Court is of the considered view that, where
permanent functional disability directly affects the earning capacity of the
victim, compensation has to be assessed by adopting the multiplier method so as
to reflect the actual economic loss suffered by him. Therefore, the Tribunal had
reasonably assessed his monthly income at Rs.8,400/- by treating him as a
labourer. Considering the nature of injuries, the extent of disability and the
resulting impact on his ability to perform his day-to-day avocation, the Tribunal
had rightly adopted the multiplier method and awarded a sum of Rs.9,83,808/-
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
under the head of permanent disability/loss of earning capacity. The
compensation awarded under the other heads, having regard to the nature of the
injuries and the period of inpatient treatment, was also reasonable and does not
warrant any interference. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
other heads, appears to be just and reasonable.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming
the award 30.09.2021 passed in MCOP No.335 of 2015 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi. There shall be no
order as to costs.
28.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKD
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi.
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
KKD
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )

CMA No. 1467 of 2024
CMA No.1467 of 2024
28-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:32 pm )