Future prospects must be included in multiplier-based compensation for permanent disability.

On 10 March 2022, Ajithkumar was riding a motorcycle when it collided with a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus near Umangalam small bridge.

He sustained serious injuries, including an above-knee amputation.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent but attributed 10% contributory negligence to Ajithkumar because he had no valid driving licence. It assessed his disability at 79%, applied a monthly income of ₹15,000 and multiplier of 18, and awarded ₹26,55,540 after deducting 10% for contributory negligence.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement; the Transport Corporation appealed challenging negligence and the quantum.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the bus driver was negligent, and its allocation of 10% contributory negligence to the claimant, warranted interference.

Whether the compensation for disability and loss of earnings was correctly calculated, including the claimant’s entitlement to future prospects.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for appeals against awards of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the multiplier method may be applied where the nature and extent of the injury justify it.

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), the Court held that 40% must be added for future prospects where the injured claimant is below 40 and is not a permanent employee.

The Court also assessed negligence on the evidence concerning the accident and upheld the Tribunal’s 10% contributory-negligence finding based on the claimant’s lack of a valid driving licence.

The Court found no basis to disturb the negligence finding: the claimant testified to the accident, while the bus driver admitted that the motorcycle came from the opposite direction and that a criminal case had been registered against him, which he had not challenged.

The Court therefore upheld the bus driver’s negligence finding and the 10% contributory-negligence deduction for the claimant’s lack of a licence.

On compensation, it upheld the use of the multiplier method, the 79% disability assessment and the monthly income of ₹15,000.

Because the claimant was below 40 and the Tribunal had omitted future prospects from its disability calculation, the Court applied a 40% addition, increasing the disability component to ₹35,83,440.

It set aside the separate ₹21,000 award for future loss of earnings to avoid treating that amount as an additional head, while confirming the other heads of compensation.

It enhanced the award from ₹26,55,540 to ₹35,58,096 after deducting 10% contributory negligence from the revised total, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.

The Corporation was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within four weeks; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.