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

Karthi sustained injuries in a road accident on 9 January 2016 involving a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus. He was 24 years old and worked as a goldsmith.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded him ₹4,78,500, including ₹1,80,000 for 60% permanent disability calculated at ₹3,000 per percentage, and ₹1,56,000 for loss of earnings.

Karthi appealed for enhancement, relying on his spinal and brachial plexus injuries, multiple surgeries, and prolonged hospitalisation. The Corporation opposed applying the multiplier method, contending there was no evidence of functional disability or loss of earning capacity.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the percentage method, rather than the multiplier method, where the Medical Board assessed 60% permanent disability but did not specify functional disability or loss of earning capacity.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under permanent disability, loss of earnings, and other relevant heads required enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries, treatment, and period of hospitalisation.

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for injuries and appeal an award on quantum.

Where evidence does not establish functional disability or loss of earning capacity, the percentage method may be used instead of the multiplier method; the Court relied on Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. M. Manoharan, 2023 (1) TN MAC 348 (DB).

In fixing compensation for permanent disability, the Court applied M. Chinnathambi v. S. Deepa and another, 2020 (1) TN MAC 617, and adopted ₹6,000 per percentage of disability.

The Medical Board assessed the claimant’s permanent disability at 60%, but its certificate did not establish that the injuries caused functional disability or reduced his earning capacity. The Court therefore upheld the Tribunal’s use of the percentage method, while increasing the rate to ₹6,000 per percentage, producing ₹3,60,000 for permanent disability.

Given the claimant’s age, the accident date, and his 142 inpatient days, the Court fixed notional monthly income at ₹10,000 and assessed loss of earnings for 24 months at ₹2,40,000; it also enhanced transportation, nourishment, and attendant charges to reflect his prolonged treatment.

The remaining heads were left unchanged.

The judgment directed deposit of the amount, less sums already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition, subject to the exclusion of the 161-day delay period for interest on the enhanced compensation. The claimant was also required to pay any deficit court fee, and disbursement was to follow the Tribunal’s directions.