Madras High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Multiplier-based compensation for permanent disability precludes a separate award for future loss of earning power.

Jayanthi vs The Managing Director

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Multiplier-based compensation for permanent disability precludes a separate award for future loss of earning power.. Jayanthi vs The Managing Director. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 15 November 2022, the appellant, a tailor riding a motorcycle, was injured when it collided with an MTC bus.

Source reference: p. 3–5

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and assessed the claimant’s permanent locomotor disability at 70%.

Source reference: p. 3–5

It applied a multiplier of 15, fixed monthly income at ₹16,500, and awarded total compensation of ₹31,41,600.

Source reference: p. 3–5

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement, including recognition of 100% functional disability and an increased income assessment

Source reference: p. 3–5
02

Issues

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s disability at 70%, rather than 100% functional disability, and its assessment of monthly income required interference.

Source reference: p. 5–6

Whether the compensation awarded under the relevant heads was inadequate and required enhancement.

Source reference: p. 6–8
03

Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 1

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court applied the multiplier method and considered the claimant’s income, disability percentage, age, and future prospects.

Source reference: p. 4

It referred to National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, which the Tribunal had relied on to add 40% towards future prospects.

Source reference: p. 4

The Court also applied the principle that compensation should not be duplicated: having awarded compensation under the disability head, it removed the separate award for future loss of earning power and placed that amount under loss of amenities.

Source reference: p. 7
04

Reasoning

The Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s 70% disability assessment, which was supported by the Medical Board’s certificate; it did not accept the claimant’s contention that her disability should be treated as 100% functional disability.

Source reference: p. 5–6

However, given the 2022 accident, the cost of living, and the claimant’s occupation, it considered the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹16,500 inadequate and raised it to ₹18,000.

Source reference: p. 6

Applying 40% future prospects, a multiplier of 15, and 70% disability, the Court recalculated compensation under disability at ₹31,75,200.

Source reference: p. 6

It also increased transportation, extra-nourishment, and attendant charges, and reclassified the ₹1,00,000 awarded for future loss of earning power as compensation for loss of amenities to avoid duplication.

Source reference: p. 6–8
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹31,41,600 to ₹34,51,200, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit, subject to the exclusion of interest for the 117-day delay period.

Source reference: p. 8–9

The respondent was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant was permitted to withdraw it subject to the stated directions.

Source reference: p. 8–9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

JayanthivsThe Managing Director

Madras High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment