Compensation enhanced by increasing assessed income and permanent-disability compensation for multiple fractures.

The appellant-claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle on 23 November 2020 when a Maruti Suzuki car allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle near Mandakapalayam Bus Stop.

He sustained a left subtrochanteric femur fracture, scalp injuries, head injury and PCL avulsion fracture of the left knee, and underwent treatment and surgery as an inpatient for seven days.

The car was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent-insurer; the fourth respondent was the owner of the motorcycle.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the car driver negligent and awarded the claimant ₹3,32,853, including ₹1,00,000 for 20% permanent disability, calculated at ₹5,000 per percentage, and ₹10,000 towards loss of income.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, principally contending that his monthly income was ₹18,000 and that the compensation for disability was inadequate.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement in view of the claimant’s injuries, disability and period of treatment?

Whether the claimant’s monthly income and compensation for permanent disability and loss of income had been assessed appropriately?

Whether the amounts awarded under pain and suffering and the other conventional heads required modification?

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to examine the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

For assessment of permanent disability, the Court referred to the percentage-based approach recognised in M. Chinnathambi v. Deepa and Others, 2020 (1) TNMAC 617, under which compensation may be awarded by fixing an amount for each percentage of disability.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that, in the absence of satisfactory proof of actual income, the claimant’s income may be reasonably assessed having regard to the accident year and surrounding circumstances.

The Tribunal’s finding on negligence and the insurer’s liability was left undisturbed because there was no dispute on those aspects.

Although the claimant asserted a monthly salary of ₹18,000, the High Court considered the accident year, namely 2020, and enhanced the Tribunal’s notional income from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 per month.

Having regard to the multiple fractures, surgical treatment, seven-day hospitalisation and the Medical Board’s assessment of 20% permanent disability, the Court considered ₹5,000 per percentage inadequate and enhanced it to ₹7,000 per percentage, resulting in ₹1,40,000 for permanent disability.

The same medical circumstances justified awarding loss of income for two months at ₹15,000 per month, amounting to ₹30,000, and enhancing pain and suffering from ₹30,000 to ₹40,000.

The amounts awarded for medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges, damage to clothing and loss of estate were found reasonable and were retained.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹3,32,853 to ₹4,02,853, comprising ₹40,000 for pain and suffering, ₹30,000 for loss of income, ₹1,51,853 for medical expenses, ₹10,000 each for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges, ₹1,000 for damage to clothing, ₹10,000 for loss of estate and ₹1,40,000 for permanent disability.

The enhanced award would carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until deposit.

The insurer was directed to deposit the award, less amounts already deposited, within four weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions after payment of any requisite court fee.

No order was made as to costs.