Madras High CourtCivil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

21-Year-Old Amputee’s Compensation Raised To Rs 24.76 Lakh As Madras HC Doubles Notional Monthly Income

M.Rajav.The Managing Director

21-Year-Old Amputee’s Compensation Raised To Rs 24.76 Lakh As Madras HC Doubles Notional Monthly Income. M.Raja vs The Managing Director. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s income and the resulting compensation for permanent disability required enhancement

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court enhanced total compensation to ₹24,76,570, comprising ₹23,58,720 for disability and the Tribunal’s awards for attendant charges, pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment.

It also directed

The enhanced amount carries interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, subject to the order excluding interest for any delay period; the Corporation was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks.

01Facts

The claimant, aged 21, was injured on 20 October 2013 while travelling as a pillion rider when a Transport Corporation bus struck the motorcycle.

¶ 3–8 · pp. 2–4

The Tribunal attributed the accident to the bus driver’s negligence and awarded ₹9,96,250, including ₹8,42,400 for 65% disability, calculated using a monthly income of ₹6,000 and the multiplier method.

¶ 3–8 · pp. 2–4

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement, contending that his monthly income should be fixed at ₹15,000 and that his disability effectively deprived him of his ability to work.

¶ 9 · p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s income and the resulting compensation for permanent disability required enhancement

¶ 12 · pp. 6–8

ii.Whether the claimant could receive separate compensation for loss of income when compensation for permanent disability was calculated using the multiplier method

¶ 12 · p. 8

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging an award made on a claim under Section 166-A, as identified in the judgment.

¶ 2, 15 · p. 2, 9

For quantifying disability compensation, the Court applied the multiplier method, using the claimant’s income, future prospects, age-based multiplier and assessed disability. Relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), it applied a 40% addition for future prospects.

¶ 12 · pp. 7–8

Where the multiplier method is used to award compensation for permanent disability, the claimant is not entitled to a separate award under the head of loss of income.

¶ 12 · p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the Tribunal had properly used the multiplier method and applied the multiplier of 18, but found the notional monthly income of ₹6,000 inadequate for a 21-year-old claimant injured in 2013.

¶ 12 · pp. 6–8

Because the claimant had not proved his asserted income of ₹15,000, the Court fixed notional income at ₹12,000, added 40% for future prospects, and applied the assessed disability of 65%: ₹16,800 × 12 × 18 × 65% = ₹23,58,720.

¶ 12 · pp. 6–8

Since the disability award was calculated using the multiplier method, it removed the Tribunal’s separate ₹36,000 award for loss of income.

¶ 12 · p. 8

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed. The Court enhanced total compensation to ₹24,76,570, comprising ₹23,58,720 for disability and the Tribunal’s awards for attendant charges, pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment.

¶ 13–15 · pp. 8–9

The enhanced amount carries interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, subject to the order excluding interest for any delay period; the Corporation was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks.

¶ 14–15 · pp. 9–10
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M.RajavsThe Managing Director

Madras High Court · October 26, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment