Madras HC Upholds ₹11.15 Lakh Award For Driver, Finding 61% Disability Affected His Earning Capacity

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when his two-wheeler collided with a Transport Corporation bus on 26 July 2015.

The Tribunal attributed the accident to the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving and awarded Rs.11,15,000, including Rs.9,83,808 for permanent disability/loss of earning capacity, based on a 61% permanent locomotor disability and the multiplier method. The Corporation appealed under Section 173, disputing negligence and the application of the multiplier method, as well as the amounts awarded under other heads.

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for injuries caused by a motor accident, and an aggrieved party may appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

Applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court stated that medical disability and loss of earning capacity are distinct: the Tribunal must assess the disability’s actual effect on the claimant’s occupation and earning ability. Where permanent functional disability affects earning capacity, compensation may be assessed using the multiplier method.

On negligence, the Court considered the evidence of the claimant and eyewitness, the bus driver’s admission that the accident occurred at a road turning, and the damage to the bus shown in the MVI report. The FIR against the claimant did not, by itself, establish his sole negligence; the Corporation had not produced an independent witness or bus passenger to support its driver’s account. The Court therefore declined to disturb the Tribunal’s finding.

On quantum, the Court found that the claimant’s 61% locomotor disability affected his right upper and lower limbs and that his injuries and treatment records evidenced serious and lasting impairment. It concluded that the disability affected his ability to perform his occupation and thus his earning capacity, justifying the multiplier method and the Tribunal’s award. The judgment describes the claimant’s occupation inconsistently: it refers to him as a labourer in parts of the decision and as a driver in others.

There was no order as to costs.