Madras HC Raises Injured Rider’s Compensation To Rs 2.27 Lakh, Rejects Multiplier As Earning-Capacity Loss Was Unproved

The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident on 9 June 2011 involving his motorcycle and a Tata Ace.

The Tribunal found the offending vehicle’s driver negligent and awarded compensation of ₹1,76,000, including ₹72,000 for 24% partial permanent disability assessed by the Medical Board.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement, contending that the disability affected his earning capacity and that the awards under several heads were inadequate.

The appeal concerned the appropriate assessment of disability and the adequacy of compensation.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the underlying claim had been filed under Sections 140 and 166 of that Act.

The Court’s reasoning treated the choice between the percentage and multiplier methods as dependent on evidence of functional disability and its effect on earning capacity: absent such evidence, compensation may be assessed by applying an amount per percentage of permanent disability.

The judgment cited no precedent or additional statutory test.

The Medical Board assessed 24% partial permanent disability but did not identify functional disability, and the record did not establish that the injuries reduced the claimant’s earning capacity.

The Court therefore found no basis to substitute the multiplier method and upheld the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,000 per percentage, totalling ₹72,000.

However, given the claimant’s 47-day inpatient treatment, the nature of his injuries and his age, the Court increased pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹75,000.

In the absence of proof of actual income, it fixed notional monthly income at ₹10,000 and allowed three months’ loss of income, while also increasing extra nourishment and transportation awards.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant was permitted to withdraw the amount on application.

The operative direction identifies the depositing insurer as “United India Insurance Company Limited,” although the second respondent is identified in the case title as Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.