Multiplier-based compensation is proper where severe disability leaves the claimant bedridden and dependent.

On 26 May 2010, claimant R. Rajangam was injured while riding pillion on a two-wheeler that was struck by a Mahindra Scorpio insured by the appellant.

He sustained injuries to his left hand and both legs and became bedridden.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai, found the Scorpio driver negligent and awarded ₹15,06,000, including ₹10,71,000 for loss of dependency and ₹2,50,000 for attendant charges, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, principally challenging the quantum, the monthly income assessed at ₹7,000, use of the multiplier method, and attendant charges

Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹15,06,000, assessed in light of the claimant’s injuries and disability, warranted appellate interference

Whether the Tribunal had a sufficient basis to adopt a monthly income of ₹7,000, apply the multiplier method, and award ₹2,50,000 for attendant charges

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Court assessed whether the Tribunal’s compensation award was supported by the evidence and was just and reasonable, having regard to the nature and extent of the claimant’s disability, his employment and income, and his treatment and care needs

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory provision.

The medical records, disability certificate, and oral evidence established that the claimant sustained injuries affecting his left hand and both legs, became bedridden, and required prolonged treatment.

The evidence of the manager of Rajangam Sudars Engineering Company supported the claimant’s employment.

In that context, and given that the accident occurred in 2010, the Court found the monthly income of ₹7,000 neither unsupported nor excessive and upheld the multiplier method in light of the claimant’s disability.

It also held that ₹2,50,000 for attendant charges was not exorbitant given the injuries, prolonged treatment, and bedridden condition

The total award was therefore just and reasonable

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, if not already deposited, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; the claimant was permitted to withdraw it with accrued interest and costs in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded