Homemaker Who Lost A Leg Keeps ₹45.5 Lakh Award, Including Lifelong Attendant Costs, After Madras HC Rejects Insurer’s Appeal

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s total compensation award of ₹45,50,000 was excessive and warranted appellate interference

The court held

The Court held that the compensation was not excessive and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

01Facts

Petchiammal, a homemaker aged 37, sustained injuries in an accident involving a vehicle insured by United India Insurance Company and underwent amputation of one leg.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–5

She was hospitalized for 77 days and required an attendant for her daily needs, including on a lifelong basis.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–5

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi, awarded her ₹45,50,000, including ₹25,20,000 for loss of earning capacity, ₹10,80,000 for attendant charges, ₹4,00,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and ₹5,00,000 for a prosthetic leg.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging only the quantum as excessive.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s total compensation award of ₹45,50,000 was excessive and warranted appellate interference

p. 2 · ¶ 2 · pp. 4–7 · ¶ 6–8

ii.Whether the individual awards for loss of earning capacity, attendant charges, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, prosthetic limb, nourishment, and transport expenses were just and reasonable

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 6–8

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

In assessing loss of earning capacity, the Court relied on the multiplier method in Sarla Verma and held that the Tribunal had applied the appropriate multiplier having regard to the claimant’s age.

p. 5 · ¶ 6

The Court also considered Mohamed Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 (1) TN MAC 20 (SC), in which the Supreme Court had assessed compensation for loss of a leg; it noted that the Tribunal’s ₹5,00,000 award for the prosthetic limb in this case was reasonable on the facts.

p. 6 · ¶ 8

The Court assessed the other heads by reference to the claimant’s injuries, hospitalization, amputation, and need for lifelong attendant assistance.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 6–8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The insurer challenged quantum alone, so the Court did not revisit liability, which had been established before the Tribunal.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

It found that the Tribunal had used the correct multiplier for the 37-year-old claimant and that the lifelong need for an attendant, supported by witness evidence, justified ₹10,80,000 in attendant charges, calculated at ₹200 per day.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6

Given the 77-day hospitalization and amputation, the Court also upheld the awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the prosthetic limb, nourishment, and transport expenses as reasonable.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7–8