Madras High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Madras HC Raises Compensation To ₹40.44 Lakh For 24-Year-Old Motorcyclist With 65% Disability After Above-Knee Amputation

M.VIJAYv.K. Singaravelan

Madras HC Raises Compensation To ₹40.44 Lakh For 24-Year-Old Motorcyclist With 65% Disability After Above-Knee Amputation. M.VIJAY vs K. Singaravelan. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s notional monthly income and compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power required enhancement.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed, and total compensation was enhanced from ₹26,75,000 to ₹40,44,840, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim-petition date to deposit, subject to the exclusion of interest for any delay period specified in the Court’s earlier order.

It also directed

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less amounts already deposited, within six weeks.

The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount upon application, and the decree was to be drawn after payment of any court fee due on the enhancement.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The claimant, aged 24, sustained serious injuries, including an above-knee amputation of his right lower limb, when his motorcycle was involved in a collision with a car on 30 December 2020.

pp. 2–4, 6

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found the car driver negligent and awarded total compensation of ₹26,75,000, including ₹13,82,000 for permanent disability and loss of earning power.

pp. 2–4, 6

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement.

pp. 2–4, 6

During the appeal, a Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 65%.

pp. 2–4, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s notional monthly income and compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power required enhancement.

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads required interference.

p. 5, 7

03Law Applied

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173 of that Act.

p. 2, 7

In assessing loss of earning capacity, the Court considered the claimant’s age, injuries, and Medical Board assessment of permanent disability, and applied the multiplier method.

p. 2, 7

It relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), for adding 40% future prospects to the income assessment of the claimant.

p. 2, 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the Medical Board’s assessment of 65% permanent disability and found that the above-knee amputation would affect the claimant’s earning capacity and cause functional disability.

pp. 6–8

Given the claimant’s age and the 2020 accident date, it held that the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of ₹8,000 was inadequate and fixed it at ₹14,000.

pp. 6–8

Applying 40% future prospects, a multiplier of 18, and 65% disability, the Court calculated compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power at ₹27,51,840.

pp. 6–8

It found the Tribunal’s awards under the remaining heads reasonable and left them unchanged.

pp. 6–8

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed, and total compensation was enhanced from ₹26,75,000 to ₹40,44,840, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim-petition date to deposit, subject to the exclusion of interest for any delay period specified in the Court’s earlier order.

pp. 8–9

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less amounts already deposited, within six weeks.

pp. 8–9

The claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount upon application, and the decree was to be drawn after payment of any court fee due on the enhancement.

pp. 8–9

No costs were awarded.

pp. 8–9
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M.VIJAYvsK. Singaravelan

Madras High Court · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment