A tribunal cannot reduce Medical Board-assessed disability without an evidentiary basis.

On 18 November 2009, the appellant-claimant was riding a TVS 50 motorcycle on the Rasipuram–Tiruchengode Road when a Hero Honda Splendor Plus allegedly collided with his vehicle, causing multiple injuries to his right leg, right hand and body

The claimant filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No.1075 of 2011 under the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming ₹5,00,000 in compensation.

The vehicle owner remained ex parte, while the insurer denied liability and alleged that the claimant’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident; a criminal case and charge-sheet had also been filed against him

The Tribunal attributed 20% contributory negligence to the claimant, fixed 80% liability on the offending vehicle, and awarded ₹2,73,887 under various heads, including ₹90,000 for 30% disability

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 20% contributory negligence to the claimant

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly for disability, pain and suffering, loss of income, nourishment, transportation, attendant charges and future medical expenses, required enhancement

3. Whether the claimant was entitled to the enhanced compensation after deduction of the contributory-negligence percentage

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits an aggrieved party to appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

In motor accident claims, compensation must be assessed on the basis of the proved injuries, disability, treatment and consequential losses, while contributory negligence attributable to the claimant may proportionately reduce the compensation payable

The Court treated the medical-board assessment of permanent disability as relevant evidence and held that, absent material justification, the Tribunal could not arbitrarily reduce the assessed disability from 34% to 30%

No reported judicial precedent was cited or applied in the judgment.

The Court upheld the finding of 20% contributory negligence because the claimant’s vehicle was involved in the collision, a criminal case and final report had been filed against him, and the Tribunal had assessed the circumstances involving the two two-wheelers; accordingly, 80% negligence was fixed on the offending vehicle

On quantum, the Court found no evidentiary basis for reducing the Medical Board’s assessment of disability from 34% to 30%, and therefore increased disability compensation from ₹90,000 to ₹1,02,000 at ₹3,000 per percentage.

Considering the nature of the injuries and period of hospitalisation, it enhanced pain and suffering from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000; loss of income from ₹18,000 to ₹30,000; extra nourishment from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000; transportation from ₹5,000 to ₹15,000; attendant charges from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000; and future medical expenses from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000, while retaining medical expenses at ₹95,887

The resulting gross compensation was ₹3,72,887, rounded to ₹3,72,900.

After applying the confirmed 20% contributory negligence, the claimant became entitled to 80% of that amount, namely ₹2,98,320

The Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence against the claimant was affirmed, but the total compensation was enhanced and recalculated at ₹3,72,900 before deduction of contributory negligence.

The claimant was held entitled to ₹2,98,320, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, excluding the default period, subject to adjustment of amounts already deposited or withdrawn

Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within four weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw it in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions