Functional disability and loss of income compensation confirmed for amputation despite victim's death during proceedings.

On October 7, 2013, K. Velmurugan was traveling in a Mahindra Tourist Van when the driver (3rd Respondent) hit a Volkswagen Polo in a rash and negligent manner.

Velmurugan sustained injuries resulting in the amputation of his left hand.

He filed a claim petition (MCOP No. 99 of 2014) but died on May 30, 2024, during the proceedings; his legal heirs (Respondents 1 and 2) were brought on record.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Tiruppur, awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,76,440/- with 7.5% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed, challenging the finding of negligence, the assessment of monthly income (fixed at Rs. 9,000/-), the 40% addition for future prospects, and the award for a prosthetic limb.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver.

2. Whether the quantification of compensation, specifically regarding the monthly income, future prospects, and prosthetic limb, was justified and based on evidence.

3. Whether the death of the claimant, occurring ten years after the accident, could be legally attributed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

The court applied Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the filing of claim petitions and the right of appeal.

It utilized the "Multiplier Method" established by precedents (e.g., Sarla Verma) to calculate loss of earning capacity, employing a multiplier of "16" for an individual aged 34.

The principles of "Just Compensation" were applied to determine non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages, including functional disability (fixed at 70%) and future prospects (fixed at 40%).

The High Court found that the insurer failed to produce contra-evidence to disprove the negligence of the van driver, noting the driver and owner did not appear to defend the case.

While the claimants alleged the death in 2024 was due to the 2013 accident, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of this claim due to a lack of documentary evidence linking the two after a 10-year gap.

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s estimation of Rs. 9,000/- per month as a laborer's wage to be reasonable despite the lack of pay slips.

It validated the use of a 16 multiplier and 40% future prospects based on the deceased’s age (34) and 70% functional disability.

Finally, the Court deemed the award of Rs. 3,00,000/- for a prosthetic limb and other heads (attender charges, nourishment) as fair and supported by the medical record of amputation.

The Court held that the negligence of the insured vehicle's driver was sufficiently established by the FIR, Charge Sheet, and oral testimony.

It further held that the compensation awarded under various heads, including loss of income and the cost of a prosthetic limb, was fair and did not warrant interference.

All connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.