Multiplier method requires proof of functional disability or loss of earning capacity; otherwise, percentage-based compensation applies.

The claimant sustained multiple fractures and other injuries when a container lorry struck his motorcycle on 31 July 2010. He sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded ₹6,03,100, including ₹96,000 for 32% permanent disability calculated at ₹3,000 per percentage point. The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement and contending that the Court should use the multiplier method because his injuries prevented him from working

The Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 32%; he had undergone four surgeries and received inpatient treatment for more than 32 days

1. Whether the claimant established functional disability or loss of earning capacity sufficient to warrant the multiplier method, rather than compensation based on the percentage of permanent disability

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads, including pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges, loss of earnings and loss of amenities, required enhancement

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for injuries and challenge the Tribunal’s award on appeal.

Under *Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar*, 2011 (1) SCC 343, the multiplier method for loss of earning capacity requires evidence of functional disability or resulting loss of earnings; where such evidence is absent, compensation may be assessed by the percentage method.

The Court also applied *P. Chinnathambi v. S. Deepa*, CDJ 2020 MHC 1013, in upholding the assessment of ₹3,000 for each percentage of disability.

The Medical Board’s certificate recorded 32% permanent disability but did not identify functional disability or loss of earning capacity. The claimant likewise did not establish that his injuries prevented him from performing any kind of work. The Court therefore found no basis to replace the Tribunal’s percentage method with the multiplier method and upheld the disability award of ₹96,000.

It found the amounts for pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges and loss of amenities inadequate in light of the claimant’s injuries, surgeries and treatment. It also extended the loss-of-earnings period from four to six months, retaining the notional monthly income of ₹7,000 because the claimed income was unsupported by documentary evidence.

The second respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount, less sums already withdrawn, within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order; the claimant could withdraw the balance in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.